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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 7

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11, and, in the other chamber, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. We expect that around 4 p.m., for the information of members, we will then move into the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

A. Dix: It’s great to join the debate on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, the government’s latest contribution to what I think we all would hope would be a collective effort to improve public education at a time when public education, and education in general, is more important for young people — for adults, of course, as well — than I think it has ever been.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If one looks at the growing inequality of our province, the difference between those who have access to high-quality education — who are able to pursue post-secondary education, whether it be in skills and training or in other fields — and those that don’t is growing and continues to grow, not just in British Columbia but across Canada and, indeed, across the world. So one would think that a government at this point in time would be inspired to join a collective effort to improve our public education system.

[1335]

Indeed, not just now, but, sadly, for the last 14 years, we’ve had a government that sees the public education system as a means to divide, a means to impose its ideological agenda, a means to score political points. In fact, this, sadly, is not just the subject of political debate where one side can have an opinion and the other can’t. It is found again and again in the documentary evidence of the courts, where this government has routinely and repeatedly found itself.

Now, compare the attitude of the government, as expressed through Bill 11 and expressed through the 14 years of education policy that has preceded it, and the attitude of people in communities. I think that there is a profound difference. In the coming week, I will be attending events — for example, at Renfrew Elementary School, where parents and teachers and students are getting together to do a fall fair. It’s a school where parents and students and teachers and support staff work regularly to address and create a learning environment that is second to none in the world. That’s what’s happening on Thursday at Renfrew Elementary School.

On Saturday at Nootka Elementary School, also in my constituency, at 1 p.m. I’ll be in the dunk tank. Just as an update, there will also be….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Agriculture — I’ve attracted his attention. He may be postponing his trip to Kelowna this weekend, just for this purpose.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I think it’s up to the minister to make a contribution. He has a considerable stipend over there. Hopefully it won’t inspire him to sell agricultural land to contribute more.

In any event, at Nootka Elementary School this weekend…. In this case a whole community around the school got together to build a new playground and won what has become a national contest put on by the Aviva insurance corporation to allow community projects from across the country to compete for funding from this private fund.

Nootka Elementary School was one of ten winners across the country. It required students and parents and teachers and the whole community around Nootka to get together to win that competition. This weekend, on Saturday, they will have a spring fair, just as Renfrew, not far away, will have one on Thursday.

At that event the whole community will come together to support programs at the school, at Nootka Elementary School, where arts programs make it a centre for people not just in the immediate neighbourhood but from different parts of the city of Vancouver.

The following Tuesday — next Tuesday, a week from today — at Cunningham Elementary, in my constituency…. Four years of effort by parents and teachers and students and support staff and the neighbourhood to build a new playground at that school. It took four years, yet they worked cooperatively to do it during some of the most difficult times in public education.

Last week at Gladstone Secondary School, also in my constituency…. I spoke about this before question period today, the efforts of Gladstone students and teachers to create a robotics program that is the envy of not just British Columbia but of the entire world. They participated in Louisville, Kentucky, in the world championships, and they finished in the top ten again.

Can you imagine? They won the world championships
[ Page 7746 ]
out of Gladstone. They’ve redefined how many students who found themselves not having a path through secondary school education find a path. I know of students who had no plans — none — to attend post-secondary education until Todd Ablett, a teacher at Gladstone Secondary School, started the robotics program.

Last weekend there was a march for the planet organized on Earth Day by Windermere students, supported by teachers who expressed their strong views on environmental issues, as they do at conferences throughout the world, bringing students together from across British Columbia and, indeed, connecting around the world.

They have a community garden that makes a huge difference in the neighbourhood. They support programs in all of the feeder elementary schools to Windermere. That’s what they’re doing. That’s what parents and students and school boards are doing. They’re working together in all of those schools and others across British Columbia to do their best to create the best public education system possible. In the spirit of cooperation — that’s how they operate on the ground.

[1340]

Contrast the approach that built those programs and built the playgrounds. Contrast the approach required for success in the classroom for students working together.

At Gladstone students in grade 12 mentor students in grade 8. Students beyond the program want to come back and mentor students to ensure that they have every access to opportunity in the future and have the joy of participating in such an event.

That’s what they do. What does the government do? Well, it is, I think, probably not wise to dwell too much on the government’s sorry record in this regard — how, on January 28, 2002, they imposed Bill 28 and ripped up contracts and ripped up supports for class size and composition.

That was their approach then. That approach continued through that decade. There were people who grew up, went to kindergarten and graduated in that period of Liberal government where, at every possible occasion, the government used the education system to gain political advantage, poke people in the eye, create division around education.

You see some remnants of it in the legislation here. The councils that were created as one of the initiatives in those periods — already abandoned in this piece of legislation. Can one imagine?

Then the return of the Minister of Education responsible for Bill 28 to the Legislature as Premier, a commitment, again, for a new approach, a new era in education. And what happened then? Well, we know this from court testimony: a deliberate effort for the partisan interests of the government, as admitted to by the government’s own negotiators in court, to produce a strike, to provoke a strike.

It was not because it was in the interests of students, because it wasn’t. It was not because it was in the interests of the education system, because it plainly wasn’t, but because it was in the political interests of the Liberal Party.

Then most recently, last year, the longest strike in the history of public education in British Columbia provincewide that had an impact, I think, on the whole system and from which that system is attempting to recover today. I pay tribute, I think, to teachers, students and parents who are making that happen in difficult circumstances.

At the end of that strike…. They said they’d changed after 2002, and then they changed again when their legislation in 2002 was found to be illegal in the courts because they didn’t take the steps necessary, in part, before introducing the legislation. This will have resonance with this piece of legislation. And then again and again and again they’ve been found out to not play by the rules with respect to public education.

Which brings us…. Well, that’s the context: what people in the education system do to make things work and what the government has done to make them not work, to pursue another agenda that isn’t about having the best possible public education at a time when public education is more important than ever.

What do we have? We have a piece of legislation, Bill 11, that follows this long strike, where more promises were made, as they’ve been repeatedly made in the past. “We’ve changed. We understand. We’re not going to play confrontation politics in our children’s classroom anymore. We repent.”

This is the message every time by the government, but repentance seems to always be waiting. As an additional opportunity for confrontation avails itself to the government, they pursue, sadly, that role again.

We saw it in the budget that this bill is intrinsically linked to, when the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope were downplaying the impact of these significant cuts and downloading that that budget reflected. But in Chilliwack and in Hope, in Harrison Hot Springs and in Vancouver-Kingsway the result is the same: cuts in the classroom. Nothing else but cuts in the classroom as a result of the Liberal budget that was introduced and passed by the government, contrary to what they said they would do.

So $54 million in cuts. It’s $29 million this year, $25 million next year on the administrative side. Cumulatively, $54 million — on top of increases in B.C. Hydro rates, which all those schools have to pay and which increase cost, increase in MSP premiums, unfunded contracts and the like.

[1345]

In my school district the result of that is $8.9 million that they have to find in additional to all of the other cuts — $8.9 million. You would see that reflected from Chilliwack-Hope to everywhere else in British Columbia. After we have seen reduction after reduction over ten years, $8.9 million is not easy to find.

Then we have now the introduction of Bill 11. After the
[ Page 7747 ]
government’s bills were found to be illegal in the courts because they refused to consult properly and refused to negotiate in good faith, we have another imposition of legislation without talking to anybody — without talking to teachers, without talking to school boards. School boards have responded, I think, appropriately by opposing these efforts.

What is the intention of the legislation? They’ve concluded that after Bill 28, after their efforts to provoke strikes, after 14 years of imposing their vision on things, that the real problem in public education…. Can you guess what the Liberal Party thinks the real problem in public education is? It’s that the Liberal government doesn’t have enough power. The problem isn’t classroom class size and composition. The problem isn’t the modern challenge of education. The problem isn’t funding. The problem isn’t any of those things. It’s that: “We don’t have enough power, so we’ve decided to put in place another piece of legislation that gives our Minister of Education more power to impose his will.”

School districts, remember — and this is the circumstance in British Columbia — have no ability to raise their own funds. When they get cut and they have funds and costs downloaded on them, they have no option but to make cuts.

The member for Chilliwack-Hope rightly talks about the differing roles of government and school boards. What the school boards have had to do is to make cuts in the classroom. They have, in effect, shielded the government from the consequences of their policy.

The member is right. It is the Liberal government’s responsibility that cuts have to be made to the quality of education in British Columbia because of this budget. He is exactly right in saying that it is the Liberal government’s responsibility. School boards’ responsibility is to protect as best as they can the public education system. What this bill does is take away some of the means by which school boards can do that.

How does it do it? First of all, it centralizes. This is very important in our constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. It gives the Minister of Education more power to deal with school property — to sell school property, to create opportunities on school lands for developers at a time when land is scarce.

The minister has decided, “This a power I would like” — not local communities, not elected school boards who’ve had that power. “I would like control.” So he has brought to himself that power. He has brought to himself, without talking to the B.C. Teachers Federation, power over the training of teachers, over the ongoing professional development of teachers. After all of the talk of a new era and a new relationship, they bring in legislation without talking to teachers on that very subject. Can you imagine it?

They’ve brought together the power to impose their will on school boards with respect to shared services. This is a power that they used to use by employing budgetary means. We remember BCeSIS. We remember it well, that experience that was the experience of the British Columbia enterprise student information system which the government introduced — shared services gone haywire, cost the taxpayers $100 million, wasted years of time in education. Utterly failed and had to be withdrawn by the government.

That is the example why the government feels it needs to have the power to impose in this area, without any consultation with school boards, why the minister wants to take upon himself…. Again, the Liberal vision of education is that our problem in the system is a lack of power for the B.C. Liberals. “That’s the problem we have to solve, so I am going to allow myself to pick and choose, to increase my control, to embarrass school districts, to try and impose my ideological agenda” — without taking any responsibility for the consequences in classrooms for those decisions.

[1350]

I have never heard, not one time, not ever, a B.C. Liberal stand up and say: “We were wrong to do BCeSIS. We were wrong to impose it on school districts. We were wrong to waste people’s money and time.” They have never admitted responsibility.

I guess the fact that they absolutely, categorically had to withdraw the disastrous program should have been seen to be enough, but never have they taken responsibility. And now they want to pick and choose, and use new powers in the law that go after school districts. Having imposed their pressure on them through cuts, contrary to what they said they would do, they want to impose more pressure on them to pick and choose on decision-making.

This is why school districts have, rightly, responded to this question. My friend, the chair of the school district in Vancouver, Christopher Richardson, has described the minister’s proposals under Bill 11 as “reshuffling the chairs of the Titanic.” It’s a time of restraint at the school board level. Therefore, we have to recycle metaphors from the past.

School trustee and longtime chair of the board Patti Bacchus talked about administrative directives in forcing school boards to sell off land as if the experience of the current government, which was to sell off permanent assets of the government for a one-time budgetary benefit, should be the policy of every public institution across the whole province.

You can see it in the comments of the Burnaby school board chair, Ron Burton, who said: “It appears that this government does not want to cooperate with anyone in education, whether it be teachers or trustees. They talk a great game about consultation, but they never do it.” I’m not sure he’s correct on that point. I don’t think they talk such a good game, but he’s being generous here.

“They make announcements and afterwards back-pedal, saying they want to discuss it.” The current structure works well, according to Mr. Burton. “Bill 11 is an attempt to fix a system that is not broken.”
[ Page 7748 ]

In short, therefore, we have a government that has destabilized the system through this kind of policy for more than a decade, that is imposing cuts that school boards across British Columbia, cut after cut, are having an impossible time sustaining and that now wants to remove from democratically elected school boards some of their powers so that the minister will have the power to impose his will but will take none of the responsibility for the consequences of his action.

This has been the case again and again and will be the case and is the case under Bill 11.

Why would it be that after the decade we have emerged from in education, this would be the approach the minister would take? Why would he not sit down with teachers and sit down with school boards and, in fact, address issues. If he thinks he has issues to bring to the table, do so in a matter of actual consultation. Instead, we have another law, another stick.

They cannot help themselves. They want to give orders, to quote from the bill, on matters “specified by the minister.” He gets to make the decisions in private. When a public light is shone on those situations, we see the same thing that happened when they went before the courts, which is to attempt to hide what their position was in the court record from public eyes. Fortunately, they were not successful in that case.

What do we need to do in public education? It seems to me that the minister could go down one of two paths with respect to Bill 11. He could attempt to learn from the last 13 years — the 13 years since the government brought in Bill 28. He could attempt to address issues of class size and composition, not to make things worse but to make things better in our classrooms. He could attempt to rebuild a new relationship with teachers, based on trust. He could attempt to set high goals for our province’s education and provide the supports necessary so that we, together, can achieve those goals.

[1355]

If you set high goals for education in British Columbia, you will find everybody wanting to join in, in a collective effort to achieve those goals. Those are the things you could do. Or you could do this approach again, this approach that has failed again and again — failed our children, failed our communities. You could go down this path again and introduce legislation, by surprise, that attempts to impose dictates from above, that has an approach to public education that says the minister knows best but, again, will not ever take responsibility for his or her actions. You could go down that road. Sadly, Bill 11 again takes us down that sorry road.

Why doesn’t the minister do one of two things? Do what he ought to do in this case, which is to understand that this bill has a context, and that context has been one of 13 years of government-imposed confrontation, and say: “I’ve made a mistake here. More confrontation is not what we need at this time.

“I’m going to not pass this legislation now and sit down with school trustees and the B.C. Teachers Federation. I’m going to not impose $54 million in cuts now. I am going to allow school boards and school children and parents and teachers to recover from what has been a disastrous few years for public education — reflected in enrolment numbers and in parents’ and children’s challenges in dealing with the government’s policy.

“I am not going to continue to impose this kind of thing from above, these new powers from above. I am going to reject the idea that the problem in education that needs solving is that the Liberal Party doesn’t have enough power but, instead, understand that to achieve long-term success in education requires the sharing of responsibility and the sharing of decision-making, something that has long and always been reflected in our system.”

The minister has a choice. We are optimistic and hopeful that he will make the right choice, that he will hear voices in this Legislature, not just from the opposition side but voices in British Columbia that have gone from everywhere I’ve gone and that have said to the minister: “This is the wrong approach in general, and it’s certainly the wrong approach now.”

I am calling on the minister to join with us in opposing this legislation, in saying not now and in sitting down and talking for the first time ever — to not continue down a path that has failed us and, worst of all, failed our children, to withdraw Bill 11, to sit down, to listen to the legitimate concerns of everyone in the educational community and to withdraw this bill.

In the meantime, I and my colleagues, I think it’s fair to say, will continue to make the case on behalf of schools and children and parents and teachers in our communities who have said: “Enough of this. Enough of this approach which has failed us.” Let’s work together to make a better public education system for all.

K. Corrigan: I’m pleased to rise to speak about Bill 11, which I am strongly opposed to.

I think it’s interesting that we see no members from the other side, none of the Liberals, standing up to say why the significant changes that wrest control, take control, from locally elected school boards are good. I think the members of the other side just really don’t want to get up and defend it. I think many of them probably recognize that this is a very bad bill.

Any time you have….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: I hear a member close by saying that that’s never stopped them before.

When you have a bill, like Bill 11, that is universally criticized by those that have a stake and knowledge and interest and concern in a field like education; when you have universal condemnation from school boards, from
[ Page 7749 ]
teachers, from parents; when you have everybody who is concerned and passionate about public education and is invested in public education and works hard in public education and understands public education….

[1400]

When all of those groups are opposed to a piece of legislation, to me that’s a very legitimate sign that there are major problems with that bill. Unfortunately, the government continues to go through with this process and seems determined to have this bill pass.

As I’ve said in this chamber many times, I was a school trustee for nine years and chair of our school board in Burnaby for the last two of those years. Before that, I was a parent who volunteered hundreds and hundreds of hours in the elementary and high schools that my four children went to in the city of Burnaby, which is part of the Burnaby school district.

Boards of education have been around for over 100 years. The B.C. School Trustees, which is very, very critical and very concerned about this legislation, is very concerned about the fact that its supposed equal co-governance model that was signed — an agreement that there would be cooperation that was signed less than six months ago — has been utterly ignored in bringing this legislation.

That B.C. School Trustees Association has been around since 1905. It is local school boards. It is local, concerned citizens that have come together to provide public education in this province. It came from the local. Public education came from the local, from local citizens concerned and creating schools and creating boards that have, in the case of my school district, 110 years of experience, experience that is very sophisticated and does a great job in my community.

I know that the local board and its leadership, the administrators, the teachers, the support staff, the parents and the students that we are doing this all for — they all do the very best. They are very efficient, very effective with each dollar. The suggestion that measures in this bill will somehow yield what has been called low-hanging fruit is absolutely outrageous.

My district — Burnaby, district 41 — is no different than many, many other districts in that there are no efficiencies to be had, absolutely no efficiencies to be had. Boards have been working for years now, working in cooperation with each other, in order to share services where appropriate. Nobody knows better than those boards do.

The secretary-treasurer of my district is the president — or was; I’m not sure if he still is — of the secretary-treasurers of the province of British Columbia. There is nobody more effective than those secretary-treasurers in doing the right thing and making sure they squeeze every single dollar and make sure that it’s effectively used. The reason they’re doing that, part of the reason — they’ve always done that — is they have had to deal with shrinking budgets year after year after year. The suggestion, from a government which is incompetent dealing with money….

Let’s think about the government that is suggesting we’re going to have efficiencies and they’re going to direct boards about how to do things more efficiently than my local school board and school boards around this province.

This is a government that imposed BCeSIS for $100 million — a database, $100 million — not to mention the millions of dollars of time that was wasted over the years, over the many years, that that system was imposed and paid for by local districts. We have a system imposed by this government that has been a complete flop and is now being dropped. This is a government, a ministry and a minister that says: “We can do better than local boards.”

The efficiencies, the programs, the effectiveness, the leadership and the creativity and innovation in education has come primarily from local boards, local teachers and local leadership. To suggest that somehow this centralized control will improve things is absolutely ridiculous.

[1405]

You know, there’s a principle of subsidiarity which says that in government what you should be doing…. Having the power to act should belong to the people that are closest to the problem that needs to be solved — on the grounds that those people, those players, are considered the most effective.

That is the presumption that should be the starting point. That is the local school boards. That is the presumption that needs to be rebutted. But I’ve heard absolutely nothing from this government with regard to local boards that says why it is that this legislation needs to be put into place.

I remember that we had a superintendent, Sheila Rooney. She used to come away from meetings with the ministry, and she’d say: “You know, I always ask them: what is the problem that the minister is trying to solve? What is the problem?”

The main complaint that I’ve heard from all the stakeholders is that this legislation is not democratic — like so many other pieces of legislation, many of which have been struck down by the courts. But this is not democratic. I think that is at the essence of this legislation. This is not democratic. My conclusion is that this minister does not like the fruits of democracy. This minister does not like people who criticize.

Instead of looking at the criticism that this government has been receiving for 14 years in their policies towards education, instead of looking at them and saying, “How can we do better?” what this minister wants to do, through this legislation, is shut down that controversy. It wants to shut down that opposition. It wants to shut down democracy as far as possible.

Certainly, the provisions that boards can be replaced, that you can have advisers come in, that decisions can be imposed on local boards — those are not democratic kinds of decisions.
[ Page 7750 ]

I referenced the fact a few minutes ago that there were promises made recently — a co-governance agreement. A memorandum of understanding was signed just in December recognizing that school boards and the Ministry of Education — the school boards through their organization, the B.C. School Trustees Association, and the Ministry of Education, signed by the minister — had co-governance and that there was an equality there. It was recognized that school boards are the best partners to deliver education.

Those school boards — and I sat on a school board for nine years — meet every couple of weeks, or every week in some cases. You as a parent or as a teacher or as a student or as a member of the community can come before that board and say what your concerns are. You can come forward and say: “I have concerns.” Or you can come forward and you can comment on programs. You can go to committees and express concerns about a whole variety of things.

Those boards are close to their community. Those school trustees — they meet members of the community in the grocery store, and they do know what is best for local education.

That is why it was important and positive that there be a memorandum of understanding that recognizes co-governance. Essentially, I think boards would actually do better if the provincial government just got out of the way and let them do what they do, because they do it very well.

It seems to me the biggest problems that we have in education are when the provincial government interferes. That’s when we have problems. That’s when we have confrontation.

This agreement that was signed in December by both parties said: “The parties recognize each other’s strengths and capabilities…. The parties are committed to cooperate in the spirit of partnership, particularly in the development of policies, programs, projects and funding options…. Any party proposing a change in policies or programs that will affect the other party will consult and collaborate with the other party to the fullest extent possible.”

[1410]

That was a commitment signed with great smiles and fanfare five months ago at the BCSTA convention. What do we have at this BCSTA convention after this legislation is brought in? No consultation, no discussion with the BCSTA, with individual boards, with the B.C. parent groups. No consultation whatsoever with the teachers, the B.C. Teachers Federation. No consultation over legislation that will make major changes to the relationship and will centralize control over many aspects of the education system. No consultation — completely ignoring.

How does the ministry now respond? Nobody — nobody — from the other side of the House gets up to speak and say that this is a good bill, because there is nothing defensible about it. It should be withdrawn. It should be rescinded. Nothing from the other side of the House.

The BCSTA convention that happened just a few weeks ago — the minister doesn’t even have the courage to stand up and talk to trustees, doesn’t even show up, and instead, sends a videotaped message, which, I understand, was not at all well received. Nobody — I don’t believe there was one member of the government, no Liberals — went to the BCSTA convention to explain themselves or discuss. What kind of relationship is that?

I’m very, very concerned, as many, many boards are concerned, about the fact that this legislation gives the minister authority to compel school districts to take part in shared-services agreements and gives the minister power to appoint an official administrator if a board fails to comply with orders that they have in a whole variety…. Matters specified by the minister, so we don’t even know in what areas.

It gives the minister power to force the sale of school properties. When we see the record of this government with regard to properties, it has to make boards very, very concerned — when they sell off properties at $45 million less than the appraised value, when they sell off properties, like in my community, that could have been used as a jewel.

When the city, the local government — which, frankly, knows way better than the provincial government — wanted to buy a piece of property they said could work very well with BCIT and the development park, the business research park, behind it…. When there was a piece of property that my city wanted to buy, instead, it was sold off in an asset fire sale by this government — $45 million less than the appraised value in one case.

We are now considering a piece of legislation where the government is going to put its hands, gets its hooks into school board property. That has to make all of us very concerned. It is completely wrong. What it’s going to do to school boards is make it very difficult. It’s going to undermine the ability of school boards to do anything.

School boards have been very effective in trying to use their property, saying: “We want to hold on to this property. We may need a school later. We want to trade this property. We want to build a board office here.” All sorts of creative things, working with city councils. In our community, city council and school board have worked very cooperatively in creating playing fields. The city put great tracks onto a couple of the school board properties. Trading of property. Park property.

Well, this piece of legislation is going to end that. Why would any city government want to invest or work with a school board if they know that the provincial government is just going to get its meathooks into that property, too, and likely sell it off, like it has all of our assets? Sell off the land bank — it is unbelievable that that could be happening.

Because I know I have a limited amount of time, I want to talk a little bit about some of the concerns that have been expressed to me and one that has not….
[ Page 7751 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat.

The member for Comox Valley.

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

Leave granted.

[1415]

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Today, joining us in the gallery, I have some constituents from the Comox Valley and their family. Would the Legislature please make welcome Allan and Brenda Good, who are joined by their daughter, Allana Lemke, their son-in-law, Randy Lemke, and grandchildren Jakob, Elias, Natalia, Noël and Micah. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: I’ll talk first about Burnaby school board. Some of the comments from the chair of the board, Ron Burton, were mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway. I talked to this school board chair in Burnaby, and essentially, his comments today were that Bill 11 is undemocratic and destructive to education and concern about the fact that control of professional development has been, basically, handed to the provincial government again.

“Disrespectful” — the byword of this piece of legislation. Like so many pieces of legislation before this, there is a lack of respect for teachers demonstrated over and over again. I don’t know how it is that teachers keep going back to the table to discuss issues or to bargain with this government when there is so little faith, when this government acts in bad faith repeatedly when it comes to both teachers and, increasingly, towards B.C. School Trustees Association and individual boards. Mr. Burton says this is an attempt to control teachers. Joint planning can respond to local needs, but there seems to be no respect for that.

I want to talk about the Prince George school board. Last week I was in Prince George and was very lucky to have had an opportunity to meet with many stakeholders, administrators, teachers, instructors and students from both the University of Northern British Columbia and the College of New Caledonia. I also met with the Prince George school board, and I was very, very impressed by that group of school trustees. They’re a wonderful, articulate group of people who are very knowledgable about their district and understand the local needs.

School boards do understand the local needs of their districts and of their students. Every district is unique. School district 57 that serves Prince George and many other communities is certainly very well represented by its trustees.

They talked to me about their concerns about Bill 11 and the fact that the provincial government is simply not listening. They said that they support the annual general meeting motions that are passed, and I’m going to mention those specifically. One of them was passed at the AGM of the BCSTA:

“That BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, 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 provision and where shared service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.”

I just want to mention that shared service provider. This is an idea that’s been around with the provincial government for many years now. We dealt with it back when I was a school trustee in 2003-2004, when the head of Partnerships B.C. said at a convention in Toronto that dealt with P3s that they were just waiting to get their heads above the water on some other areas before they started to impose P3s on school boards in British Columbia.

That has not happened yet, but that was the intention at that time. It was back in 2003 and 2004 when those comments were made. I remember then that the BCSTA stood up and passed resolutions — I think unanimously; if not unanimously, very close to that — that they were very concerned and opposed to the idea of imposing P3s. P3s were all about shared services and about the imposition of contracts where local control would be lost in large P3 contracts.

I think boards are particularly concerned about things like janitorial services. All the folks who work in schools — the support staff, the teachers, the administrators…. They are concerned and working toward the best interests of the children.

[1420]

To have service providers coming into schools was a real concern — low-paid service providers who might be changing because they’re minimum wage. We’ve seen what has happened in care homes — the flipping of contracts, different providers coming in, different care workers coming in. It’s not good for the patients, and it would not be good for schools to have service providers with people coming into schools.

This may not be what the intention is. But it was certainly a concern over a decade ago, and it would be a concern now. We do know what the Liberals are very good at doing: selling off contracts to their friends and not necessarily in the best interests of this province — often not in the best interests of this province.

That was the first motion. The second motion: “That BCSTA demand 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 process or resulting regulations.”
[ Page 7752 ]

There has been no more willing group in this province than the BCSTA to work cooperatively with this provincial government, despite the high-handed and disdainful attitude that this government has repeatedly shown to school trustees, as well as teachers. School trustees have continued to try to work, but these resolutions certainly demonstrate that they’ve just about had it with this provincial government, with their high-handed approach and lack of cooperation, which is not good for public education.

This was the first part of this letter from the Prince George school board, saying that they support those motions. This was a letter they sent me immediately after I met with them last week. Here’s what they said: “We are deeply concerned with the elements in the bill that increase the authority of the Ministry of Education in local decisions and district directions and which challenge the local autonomy and authority of locally elected boards of education.”

This is what I was told by the Prince George school board over and over again, certainly concerns echoed by the Delta school district, echoed by other school districts, from the board chair of Nanaimo over and over again and, of course, the umbrella organizations — that there is a wresting away of autonomy and that there is a loss of democracy through Bill 11.

The Prince George school board was very concerned about the appointment of special advisers or a special advisory committee, significantly expanding the minister’s authority to appoint a special adviser. This further suggests an erosion of local autonomy and local decision-making. And they’re very concerned about the shared-service provisions, very concerned about having designated service providers and very concerned about the management of schools and property.

This letter that came from the board represented the whole of the board of Prince George. Just at the end of this short letter…. It was very quickly written, but it was well done.

“As was shared during our meeting with Kathy, Bill 11 has significant implications for public education and the importance of local autonomy and local decisions that are in the best interests of local communities and all children. Public education is a democratic right to a free, quality public education. In fact, the point was made that public education is the heart of an inclusive democracy society and any erosion of public education is an erosion of the inclusive rights of its citizens. The provisions in Bill 11, which I have outlined, if enacted in legislation, regulation or order, have the potential of eroding these rights.”

The letter, by the way, was written by trustee Sharel Warrington. It was sent to me by Tony Cable, the chair of school district 57. In that covering e-mail he said: “Please be assured that trustee Sharel Warrington has written the attached comments that reflect how the board of school district 57 feels about Bill 11.”

As I said, there are many, many school districts and many, many concerns. I want to also just mention that there are concerns, as well, about the access to student information and what the potential is for that. Whether or not there is a potential….

[1425]

Student information has been protected in the past. This bill provides for the ability of sharing student information. That is always a concern. There is always the concern of data being inappropriately used, data being used for wrong purposes and data being inadvertently shared or released. That has happened with this government in the past, so that is a concern.

I also want to, again, comment on the fact that the government did not consult with the B.C. Teachers Federation on changes to professional development. They say they’re going to collaborate, but if they wanted to collaborate, that could have happened anyway. This is essentially taking control of professional development, which is, again, indicative of a relationship that is not respectful, does not indicate respect between the parties and respecting the fact that teachers are professionals. I have such a great deal of respect for the people that teach in my district and many other districts.

I was actually kind of chuckling when I saw that one other part of this bill is that they are going to get rid of school planning councils. I remember when school planning councils were brought in. They were brought in when I was a school trustee, not too far into the time that I became a school trustee. School boards asked, teachers asked and administrators asked: what is this all about?

At the time I think the idea was that…. Emery Dosdall was the deputy minister of Education, and it was something that he had been a champion of and was a champion of in Alberta. The idea was to pass control and responsibility down to local schools for funds for running the schools. This was supposed to be part of that. It never worked. It was a lamebrained idea. It was done, yet again, without any kind of consultation.

They were asking parents…. Parents were already overwhelmed with trying to be on advisory councils, trying to volunteer in the schools, trying to do the many, many things that parents do in schools. This added a responsibility for the budget, essentially — in many cases, the budget — and the school plans.

It didn’t work, because parents simply didn’t have enough time. They’re being required to spend more and more time fundraising. All it did was impose another layer of bureaucracy and time-consuming responsibility essentially on the administrators of the schools. So another idea from the provincial government that did not work.

I see my time is coming to a close. I am certainly opposed, as my colleagues are, to Bill 11. It is a bill that wrests authority away from school boards inappropriately. It does not respect school boards. It does not respect teachers. It is non-democratic.

It is done simply because this government refuses to work with the partners appropriately, as it should. And because it doesn’t like the way school boards and teach-
[ Page 7753 ]
ers behave, it’s going to shut them up, essentially, or take control away from them. It is not good. Given the history of the government in this province dealing with the education system, it is the wrong move.

M. Mungall: I rise today to take my place in the debate on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act. I want to commend my colleague who just took her place in this debate for taking her full 30 minutes in highlighting the various ways in which this bill is a real detriment to the future of British Columbia’s public education system, how it’s going to pose problems into the future and how it completely and utterly disrespects the partners in the public education system of this province.

[1430]

At its core what this bill does is centralize provincial government control over B.C. education. It removes control out of the hands of duly elected school boards, out of the hands of the teachers who are in the classrooms every day with the children of this province. It takes their responsibilities, their ability to do their jobs to the fullest extent of the parameters in which they are supposed to be working, away from them and puts it in the hands of the minister.

The Minister of Education, regardless of which party is in government, is appointed to that position. Yes, they are elected just as every member of this House is — as we are elected to represent our constituents. But the minister of the day does not have that direct daily relationship that teachers have with their students, that parent advisory councils have with their children and have with the teachers and that school trustees have with their communities.

That is a worry. That is a worry for I think every person who believes in public education. We need to ensure that the democratic principles are in place to guide our public education system. But those are being removed. They are being eroded by this bill. So you won’t be surprised that over the next few minutes that I give my contributions to this debate, you’ll conclude that I, too, am opposed to Bill 11. It’s bad legislation.

As I said, it centralizes government control over education. This is how it does it. First, the government is unilaterally giving authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects to, in their words, “improve student performance.” My guess is this has less to do with student performance and more to do with their budgetary concerns.

Nothing shows that more than the fact that there’s a budget cut in the 2016 budget to the Ministry of Education, saying to school districts: “Through shared services, you’ll be able to spend $29 million less this year, $25 million less next year.” You’d think that any member of the public would probably think: “Well, if we’re going to reduce administrative costs through these shared services, as imposed by the minister and defined by the minister, then those remaining dollars are going to go back into the classroom.”

I’m sad to let British Columbians know that that’s not the Liberals’ plan. The Liberals’ plan is to take that money directly out of public education. That’s not okay. Kids in this province, their families, their communities, deserve better.

Along with forcing shared services onto school districts, thinking that it knows better than school districts what kinds of services they are able to share, this bill loosens the restrictions on sharing student personal information. We’re dealing with privacy issues, and in the modern era of the Internet, privacy is critical. We need to be looking at privacy laws seriously, not haphazardly. Unfortunately, this bill is a haphazard approach to our children’s privacy.

The other thing that this bill does is give the minister authority over custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. Now, that might sound okay. It might say: “Okay. The government is putting some effort into looking at how school properties are maintained.” “Are they safe?” and “Are we going to finally, properly address the seismic upgrading?” might be some of the questions that British Columbians have on this bill.

Again, I’m sad to say that most people, most trustees who are doing their good job every day of governing local school districts, believe that this is about selling off property.

[1435]

We all know how this government’s track record on selling off public lands to pad their budgets has gone — $43 million lost, when this government decided to sell lands in the Tri-Cities area at a $43 million loss. Their own government appraised it at $128 million, and they sold it for $85 million. If that’s the type of approach this government has to public lands, everybody should be worried about how this government is going to take control and, therefore, manage our children’s school lands.

The other thing that really distresses me about this bill is that much of the details for all of these topics are going to be left to regulation. No consultation is required for any type of regulation. No public oversight is required for any regulation.

Just so that the people at home understand, regulation is made by what’s called an order-in-council. It’s made by cabinet at a cabinet meeting, and those are not subject to public recording in the same way as what transpires in this House and what happens through legislation. The result is that at a time when government should be open and transparent about such issues, it isn’t. It’s just plain isn’t.

This is most distressing with the other thing that this bill does — and that is, defines and requires certain professional development for teachers. Without teachers, this bill…. The government says: “Don’t worry. We’ll consult you later.” I’ve heard that so many times, I know not to believe it.
[ Page 7754 ]

What this bill does is it starts to define and require professional development of teachers but doesn’t give teachers the same control over professional development that other professions have.

Let’s look at each one of these things that the bill does, distinctly.

Like I said, around shared services this government now has the ability to override the authority of school districts on shared services. It can go up to school district 8 and school district 43 and say: “You two, you have to work together on paper purchasing.”

Now, most school districts are already looking at ways that they could share services to reduce overall cost to the taxpayer and ensure that more of those funds are going into the classroom. Those funds are desperately needed in the classroom, as we all know. We know that we’re lacking resources in the classroom. We know that we have too many children with special needs who are not getting the supports they need so they can reach their full potential, that teachers are overstretched with oversized classrooms.

We know all of this to be true, and this government has consistently been dragging its feet to address that — in fact, fighting its right in court to ignore the issue. Taking time to go to court to ignore the needs of children is abhorrent. It is absolutely abhorrent, but that’s what this government does. Now, rather than acknowledge the work that school districts have been doing to share services, to find savings so we can put money back in the classroom, the minister is saying: “I know what’s best.” Very paternalistic here.

The minister insists that they know what’s best. This flies in the face of the agreement that this government has with school districts — the agreement for co-governance, an agreement based on respect, an agreement that is supposed to see the provincial government and our elected officials around school district tables working together. That is being severed by this bill.

As I said, they want to force school districts to work together. There are a lot of things to consider. For example, when you’re forcing school districts to work together, a smaller school district might be subsumed or become subordinate to a larger school district. There’s a lot to consider.

[1440]

Is the minister going to consider that? Can we trust this minister to consider that? I don’t think so.

If you want to have an example of where the Liberals have absolutely failed on trying to impose a shared service onto school districts, you need to look no further than BCeSIS. This was a computer system meant for school districts across the province to be able to use to maintain their students’ data — marks, how they behaved in class, how they were performing in class, if they were they improving, if something was going on that caused them to meet a challenge unsuccessfully, so on and so forth.

In 2010, not too long ago, just five years ago, BCeSIS drew considerable media attention for its slowness and its difficulty in filling out forms, its shutouts. Teachers were just being hampered to do the job that they’re supposed to do — which is to look after the education of our children — because of this computer system.

Eighty million dollars was spent, and finally, a year later, after all of the problems came to light in 2010, the Ministry of Education had to admit that it had just wasted $80 million of taxpayers’ money on a failed computer system that they were trying to get every school district to use under a shared-services approach. The Ministry of Education in 2011 scrapped BCeSIS because it was such a colossal failure. That’s the last time they tried to force a shared service onto school districts. I’d hate to see what the future looks like if this bill goes forward.

Another point here is that the savings, as I mentioned, are not going to be going back into the classroom. The savings that would be happening for many of these shared services have already been budgeted for, apparently, in the budget, with a cut to the Ministry of Education, and they’re not going back into the classroom.

That money should be staying with the Ministry of Education. That money should be going directly back into the classroom, where this province needs it most. This province doesn’t need this government giving endless amounts of dollars, it seems, every single year to Jumbo, which is a fake town that serves absolutely no one.

This government has wasted incredible amounts of money, whether it’s cost overruns from the northwest transmission line or B.C. Place. This public doesn’t need this government wasting money on the integrated case management system — $182 million wasted, and more to come on this computer system, I might add — or $72 million wasted on a wasted health computer system.

That’s not what people need. They need money going into the classrooms. That’s what the future of our province needs. But instead of putting any savings from shared services into that, it’s going into the void of general revenue, maybe ultimately, to be funnelled over to Jumbo, that fake town of no one.

That is atrocious. That is atrocious that we are not seeing that money returned to the classroom for things like teachers assistants or educational assistants, increasing the number of teachers so we don’t have oversized classrooms. There’s an idea. Or how about something as simple as updating our textbooks?

I remember I was going through Facebook not too long ago, going through my news feed, and an upset mom posted a photo of her child’s history and geography textbook. The Soviet Union was there, and that was the most contemporary textbook that that class had for geography. The Soviet Union. I’ll just remind some of the members of this House that the Soviet Union fell in 1991. I was 12, so it was a while ago.

[1445]

The other thing that is very concerning in all of this is the professional development side of things for teach-
[ Page 7755 ]
ers. Now, teachers regularly do professional development, updating their knowledge, updating their best practices for being at the front of the classroom, for helping B.C.’s children. They regularly do this. It’s what makes them good teachers, and they know that.

Just like every other profession, they are doing professional development. Doctors do professional development. Nurses do professional development. Almost every other profession that does professional development to upgrade, increase and stay contemporary with modern technologies and modern practices — they self-regulate, and they define what needs to be done.

This government is generally…. They’ve been okay with that. In fact, they’re quite fine with it. You don’t see them trying to mandate professional development standards on doctors, but you see them doing this on teachers. Why is that?

It’s because this government has a very particular disdain for the teachers of this province, and there is ample evidence to show that. We need to only look at the fact that every single contract that this government has signed with teachers has been preceded by some kind of labour dispute simply because this government refused to go to the table in good faith and bargain in good faith, bargain respectfully.

This has happened time and time again, and we should be concerned when this government thinks that it knows better than teachers and school districts and parent advisory councils what’s needed in the classroom. That is awful, and I don’t think, at the end of the day, that this is going to be serving our students well.

The other point that concerns me, as I mentioned, is student privacy. Just to provide some detail, these proposed amendments, as I mentioned, erode student privacy. Specifically, section 170 of the School Act, entitled “Non-disclosure of student records,” is going to be deleted by Bill 11, and it’s going to be replaced with a new section titled “Student personal information.”

That might just seem like a change in semantics, but it’s not. The current section 170 has strict controls over the ability of ministry employees to disclose student personal information. These new amendments are more permissive in nature.

There are so many questions around these new amendments, questions that people in British Columbia have. How is this data going to be maintained? Who all is going to have access to it? Will this be shared from one ministry to another? If so, why? There are multiple questions that need to be answered to ensure that people’s — that children’s — privacy is maintained.

I’m particularly curious if this section of the act is even in line with our Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. No doubt, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will have something to say, ultimately, about how this change, this amendment, is going to take place.

Hon. S. Anton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to introduce the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary school in my riding. They’re all up there looking over at us, and I must say they know the B.C. Legislature extremely well. They answered all my questions, and they knew better than a lot of kids older than them that usually get the answers. So congratulations to their teachers and parents supporting them — Mrs. Duffin, Mr. Dayo, Ms. Singh, Mrs. Tai, Miss Martin, Mr. Pena, Mr. Perrotta and all of the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary in lovely Vancouver-Fraserview.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston will continue.

[1450]

M. Mungall: Well, I have to say that it’s wonderful that we have a group of school kids here right now. Often when school kids come, we could be debating anything from amendments to the Seafood Act or fisheries. But today we’re actually debating something that is happening that’s important to their day-to-day lives, being students in the public school system. So I imagine that’s a bit more of an extra treat than just being here at the Legislature and meeting your MLA, which is a treat in and of itself.

As I was saying about the privacy issues with Bill 11, we have just too many questions that are going unanswered, that are going to be left to regulation. As I mentioned, regulation is done by the stroke of a pen in a cabinet room. It does not have the public scrutiny that it would if it was in legislation — scrutiny that I think the public, whose lives are going to be impacted by these changes to privacy, ought to have some input into.

Indeed, looking to the future and looking to today’s children, I think they deserve better than to just have to trust that the Liberals won’t make the same mistakes they did with BCeSIS with their privacy and how that will play out in their future.

Now, you’d think that with any types of significant changes that would have an impact on school district budgets, that would impact the professional development of teachers and that would impact the privacy rights of students, there would have been some type of consultation with the stakeholders that are going to be directly impacted by this bill prior to the legislation hitting the floor. I am disappointed that that has not been the case. It should have been.

Everybody in this province deserves better than being
[ Page 7756 ]
ignored by this government. Had they done some consultation, I probably would have received very different letters than what I did receive from school districts around the province but, most notably, my own school district 8, Kootenay Lake school district.

I want to share with members opposite exactly what people in the Kootenays are saying about this legislation. I think it’s important that we hear directly what they have to say. The Kootenay Lake district parent advisory council shares this. They say: “This legislation severely inhibits the participation of parents, trustees and teachers in the delivery of public education and increases the power of those farthest away from the students.”

No doubt about it. In the Kootenays we often feel like we’re very far away from Victoria. It’s a 13-hour drive on a good day, in the summer. We’ll ignore the blizzards in the winter and how long that can take things. We’re far away. We don’t have the opportunity to come and meet with the minister, give him direct feedback on how this bill is impacting kids’ lives. We can do that with our school district but not anymore, after Bill 11.

The Kootenay Lake DPAC goes on to say: “Consultation after the fact does not equate with involvement during the process.” I think that says it all right there. They just simply weren’t consulted. To say, “Trust us, and we’ll do it later,” isn’t good enough.

Parents are also concerned about the changes to the permitted uses of student information. The legislation, as presented, is very vague in this regard and raises concerns about the privacy of sensitive information about our children.

They go on: “The authority of our locally elected representatives is being severely eroded. Boards of education are being forced to comply with mandates emanating from the office of the minister or face the threat of replacement by a non-elected, non–locally accountable political appointee.” For the parents of school district 8 in my riding of Nelson-Creston this bill is not okay, and they don’t want to see it go through.

[1455]

I also have a letter that I received recently from the chair of school district 8. She writes that school district 8 calls upon the provincial government for the “immediate withdrawal” of Bill 11. They go on to say: “Those at the grassroots, including our parents, educators, staff and local board of education are not being consulted.”

Like I said, you’d think that any significant change to the School Act would require some type of consultation if you are actually in a co-governance model with school districts. Co-governance to most people means that there’s a partnership, a collaboration, that they’re working in tandem together — lock, stock and barrel. That’s not what happened here. Again, the government writes something nice on paper and then just does whatever it wants later.

School district 8 is calling on the government to institute a broad-based consultation process and put this bill on hold or withdraw it altogether and start from scratch. They have some questions too: “Is the shared-services plan going to be an impediment to independently and appropriately managing priorities in local districts? Does the provincial government intend to take over control of the land assets owned by the school districts?” We don’t know that. We don’t have the answer to that. That’s going to come in regulation.

The school board goes on to say: “We are left suspicious of the government’s motives and deeply concerned about the future of boards of education across the province.” They warn the government: “There will be no buy-in to the provincial government plans for educational restructuring unless the stakeholders can be made participants of the change rather than having change simply foisted upon them.”

Those are wise words coming from the Kootenays. This government should consider them, consider withdrawing Bill 11, go back to the drawing board and work under a co-governance model, as they had promised. School districts work with them to make any types of changes going into the future.

I also think it’s important to share with the House some words coming from Delta school district. I know that the member for Delta South will likely be speaking to this, but I have been sad to see that so far, well into the debate, the Liberals have discontinued putting up speakers and that the member for Delta North will not be able to share these comments.

Delta writes: “We have been democratically elected to safeguard the resources of our district on behalf of our constituents. We must, therefore, speak against any legislation that would alter this mandate by placing an unelected special adviser, who is not accountable to our community, in front of our trustees’ ability to serve our community.”

Delta school district, Kootenay Lake school district — they are just two of many school districts across the province who are speaking out against Bill 11. They are part of a growing group of people, a growing movement of school districts, of teachers, of parent advisory councils who are saying this bill is not good for public education, this bill is not good for our students’ future, and this bill is not good for our province.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a government who will work with them, who will listen to them, who will collaborate with them and not ignore them when it is suddenly inconvenient for their budgetary concerns. We need better governance. We need better legislation. British Columbians deserve that.

A. Weaver: To begin, I’d like to emphasize that I’ve always believed that teaching is the single most important profession in our society. Each and every one of us has attended school, and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do, and how we contribute to society. So
[ Page 7757 ]
it follows that public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province.

[1500]

Public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society and become the leaders of tomorrow. Teaching is a thoroughly rewarding yet physically and emotionally exhausting profession. It takes a very special person to be able to instruct a class of 20 to 30 young children for five hours every day. Last year I spent a day engaging every grade from kindergarten to grade six at Savory Elementary’s 4Seasons Eco School, 4EST, program.

I only had one lesson plan to deliver to the seven separate classes, from 8:45 to 2:30 on that day. I had no marking to take home, no report cards to write, no parents to interact with, no staff meetings and no administrative activities. Nor did I have to take the students on extracurricular activities. But let me tell you that I was exhausted at the end of the day. And I only did that once, not day in, day out, for months on end.

Let me start my speech by noting that we have outstanding teachers and an exceptional education system in the province of British Columbia. Every three years the program for international student assessment, known as PISA, evaluates the performance of students internationally in three subject areas: mathematics, science and reading.

The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada further breaks down the Canadian results on a province-by-province basis. British Columbia consistently performs extremely well. In 2012, for example, British Columbia was the top Canadian province in reading and science and was second only to Quebec in mathematics.

In fact, British Columbia students even performed better than students from the much-touted education system in Finland in both reading and mathematics. And while Finland scored slightly ahead of B.C. in science, the difference was statistically insignificant. Of course, we’ll have to wait until December 2016 to get the PISA 2015 results to see how British Columbia continues to fare.

Now, I recognize that the PISA results only provide one metric of student achievement and, hence, the success of the British Columbia school system. Nevertheless, it’s a very positive one. It says to me that we must be doing something right in British Columbia despite what we might read about in the news. It also suggests to me that maybe we should start to celebrate our successes and dwell less on the negative arising from a dysfunctional relationship between the B.C. government and the BCTF.

At the end of the strike last fall the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.” Rather than viewing this as five years of simmering anger waiting to boil over when the negotiations next begin, we should be capitalizing on this time to envision bold new ways of ensuring our educational system is sustainable.

This includes teachers being fairly compensated and adequately supported with properly funded curriculum and learning resources. Such support must include sincere and meaningful class size and composition discussions and support that recognizes that teacher burnout affects us all. It must include reinvigorating our educational infrastructure and ensuring that children have textbooks and access to learning materials.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

On Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its decision concerning the rights of teachers to negotiate conditions around class size and composition. Rather than allowing this to serve as a catalyst to incite increased tension between the BCTF and the government, perhaps both parties will recognize the opportunities that will arise from mutual collaboration, no matter what the Court of Appeal’s decision is.

For example, perhaps there is a compromise on class size and composition negotiations. Why don’t the BCTF and the B.C. government both agree, for example, that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level?

In fact, as noted in the book Worlds Apart: British Columbia Schools, Politics and Labour Relations, Before and After 1972 by Thomas Fleming, the BCTF was not pleased with the 1994 Public Education Labour Relations Act which led to the formation of BCPSEA and to the BCTF being appointed as the official bargainer for all teachers.

[1505]

Provincial data clearly show that one size does not fit all. The class size and composition needs of Haida Gwaii’s school district No. 50 are almost certainly different from those in the Gulf Islands, No. 64, or Surrey, school district 36.

Perhaps both parties would consider waiving the right to strike in favour of binding arbitration with respect to salary and benefit negotiations. In 1950 Manitoba teachers did just this. In return, they gained binding arbitration, due process and a provincial certification board. There has been labour peace in Manitoba ever since.

Binding arbitration forces each party to come up with their best offer. The arbitrator then chooses from one of them or some combination of both. One thing is certain: outlandish requests are taken off the table quickly when binding arbitration is in play.

While the B.C. government and the BCTF play out their decades-long dance of dysfunction as they battle it out, entrenched in what I perceive to be ideological positions, the ones who are paying the price are the children in the classroom, the teachers who teach them, and the parents at home.
[ Page 7758 ]

But moving this relationship forward requires trust, mutual trust. It’s easy for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education are leery to trust the direction this government is taking in Bill 11. This bill is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government is providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Nobody knows what the minister has in mind or what cabinet will do with these powers, should this law receive royal assent.

Bill 11 repeals the concept of school planning councils. Frankly, I support moving back to focusing the parents’ role in the parent advisory councils. The B.C. Liberals school planning council model was a failed approach to school-based governance, introduced when our current Premier was the Minister of Education.

I doubt that there will be much public outcry over this, although it would have been preferable to give the public more opportunity for input prior to actually putting this legislation forward. After all, this is public education that we are discussing here today.

Bill 11 takes the very provocative and, honestly, I think ill-thought-out position of empowering the minister to set teachers’ professional development requirements. Like any profession, teachers require ongoing professional development. That goes without saying. But like these same professions, professional development must be led by the experts. In this case it’s by the teachers, not by ministerial decree.

Now, I recognize that the minister will say and respond that he wants to negotiate with the BCTF as to what this professional development might look like. However, my reply to the minister on this is that he has lost trust. He’s lost the trust of the teachers, as what the minister had in mind should have been conveyed prior to, rather than after, this legislation being tabled.

Besides, what body would oversee the professional development? The B.C. College of Teachers would have been the natural place, but it’s been disbanded. The BCTF is a union tasked with representing its members in negotiations, not in maintaining professional standards. So they are not the appropriate home for such professional ongoing professional development.

The teacher regulation branch doesn’t seem the right place either. So what does the minister have in mind? We simply don’t know, and therein lies the problem. Why are we bringing forward legislation to discuss this when we do not know what the minister has in mind and when trust has been broken and lost with negotiations on this topic with the teachers before we’ve even started to discuss it?

It’s clear to me that this bill was not ready for debate in the Legislature. In my view, it should have followed the lead of the Society Act or the Water Sustainability Act and allowed extensive public consultation prior to its introduction, rather than afterwards.

[1510]

Both of those pieces of legislation obtained a social licence, public support. In the case of the Society Act, public input led to a better act, with the removal of section 99. But here we do not have public support. We’ve just come off a prolonged strike, and on Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its long-awaited decision.

What an incredible opportunity this could be for British Columbians to be offered to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve our education system.

Instead of discussing this ill-thought-out legislation whose direction is not actually brought forward with any substance today for us to speak to, we could have had a discussion about education. For example, we could have had a discussion about education funding.

The level of funding allocated to our public education system depends on the priorities of the government. In British Columbia spending on health care has remained a priority since 2000, ranging between 7 percent and 8 percent of provincial GDP. Funding for social services and education expressed as a percentage of GDP, on the other hand, has dropped over this period of time.

In the case of education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP, it has declined from a high of about 6.4 percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took office first, to an estimated low of about 5 percent in 2014-2015. Now, that’s a 22 percent decline in the percentage of funding, as a percentage of GDP, being spent on education in our province.

If British Columbians deem education to be as important as I do, surely this drop needs to be rectified. So the question is: where does this money come from? I would argue that British Columbians need to have a hard look at our sources of provincial revenue and the way we spend the money that government receives. Given a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts, perhaps it’s time to take a look at whether or not we’ve gone too far.

That’s an important discussion to have, as it ultimately affects the availability of funds for our public education system. That’s a discussion we could have had prior to the introduction of Bill 11. With increases in public school enrolment looming, it’s critical that we initiate this discussion now, not later, not tomorrow, not after the next settlement is in negotiation with the teachers in our province.

We could have had a discussion about the ongoing role of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. The BCPSEA was established in 1994. Since that time there has been a continued escalation of conflict between the BCTF and the government via BCPSEA. Perhaps it’s time to consider dismantling BCPSEA and, instead, bringing its operations directly into the Ministry of Education. This would signal that government is willing to start afresh to try and build a new relationship with teachers. After all, it’s the government, not BCPSEA, that holds the purse strings.
[ Page 7759 ]

We could have engaged in a discussion about the role of school boards in our public education system. Thomas Fleming, in his aforementioned book, noted:

“A history of extremely low voter turnout in school board elections, along with the influence of teacher associations over electoral candidates, has raised serious questions about whether boards in fact actually reflect the public’s educational will or simply serve as a platform for the expression of various special interests — all insistent on greater school spending, regardless of other legitimate public demands government is obligated to consider.”

That quote comes from page 109.

He further points out that only between 5 percent and 10 percent of eligible voters turn up at a school board election not occurring at the same time as municipal elections. In addition, he detailed a by-election in the capital regional district that brought out around only 2 percent of the electorate.

The mandate of school boards has changed over the last century. In the early 20th century local school boards were tasked with hiring the teacher for their often one-room schoolhouse in rural areas, for example, and ensuring that the school was kept up. Provincial inspectors toured the province to make sure that centrally determined educational standards were maintained.

[1515]

In an extremely influential report authored by Max Cameron in 1946, sweeping changes were proposed to the previously existing model of public school governance. Increased financial efficiency and equitable educational opportunities for all rural and urban British Columbian students required a new approach. In 1944 there were 650 school districts governed by 437 school boards. Just three years later only 89 school districts remained, and by 1971 this was down to 74. Today there are 60 school districts. Is that the right number? Should their mandate be changed? These are questions the public should have had a chance to discuss and become engaged on discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

We could have engaged in a discussion about whether British Columbians want to follow the New Zealand model, where school boards were eliminated in their entirety, or the Finnish model, where school districts are aligned more closely and intimately with local municipalities for funding, or some other variant.

We could have engaged in a discussion about teacher shortages that will emerge in a few years as projected enrolment increases. All school-aged demographics are expected to rise for at least the next decade. This further suggests that while we may have an excess of teachers being trained today, in three or four years, as the teacher demographic ages and as the number of school-aged children starts to increase, we will almost certainly have teacher shortages, particularly in the areas of French immersion, mathematics and science, where demand exceeds supply even presently.

Rather than perpetuate the boom-and-bust cycle of teacher training and hiring and rather than keeping people for many years on the teacher-on-call list, perhaps a more gradual transition to full-time employment could have been developed. Perhaps we could be discussing this as many of the things in our education system that we could and should have been discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

For example, teacher burnout early on in one’s career is not uncommon. We all know an example of a teacher or two who taught for a few years and moved on, as if the requirements placed upon them are simply unbearable, given the support that is lacking at their early age of entry into the teaching profession.

A young teacher might be thrown into a new situation, with multiple class preparations for a range of students with a diversity of skills and backgrounds, with no past teaching material practices to draw upon. New teachers can quickly become overwhelmed with workload.

Senior teachers, on the other hand, approaching retirement have a wealth of experience, curriculum resources and best practices. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate a buddy system, where a retiring teacher signs an agreement to retire gradually over, say, a three-year period, and during that time the starting teacher is paired with the retiring teacher. While the senior teacher gently eases into retirement, the new teacher gently eases into full-time teaching, and the decades of experiences and best practices are passed along from the senior to the junior teacher.

Finally, perhaps we could have started a discussion about innovative ways that would allow school districts to build upon best practices of shared services prior to the introduction of this bill that we are discussing today. Perhaps the government could play a role here and provide the province with a centralized payroll system or legal services, for example. Does each district need to have its own payroll department? Should teachers be employed by the Ministry of Education instead of the board? Are there opportunities for economies of scale?

Bill 11 enables the minister to step in, but again, it would have been preferable to open the bill up first for public and stakeholder input prior to tabling it in this House.

Now, those ideas that I’ve put forward are not ones that I’m advocating for particularly, or any at all. I’m simply introducing them and putting out these ideas in the hope that they provoke discussion, a discussion about how public education should evolve in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the approach to educational policy change in the province of British Columbia is viewed by many — by parents, by teachers, by others — in the province as heavy-handed and top down.

Building a social licence for change requires uncomfortable topics to be discussed and new ideas also to be discussed. Sadly, rather than introducing this legislation after such discussions were conducted and concluded, the legislation was brought forward prematurely, and
[ Page 7760 ]
in doing so government sends the wrong message to teachers.

[1520]

It sends a message that suggests a heavy-handed, top-down, rather than collaborative, approach to educational reform is the direction that this government is heading.

But please let me reiterate. The status quo between the government and the BCTF cannot continue. The politicization of our public education system serves no constructive purpose. We have outstanding and dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia. We have a very educated workforce, and we can use it to attract business to our province, as we offer something no one else in the world has — bountiful natural resources and the most beautiful place on earth as our backyard.

Now, the politicization of our public education system is not just the fault of the government. When the BCTF invites the leader of the B.C. NDP to address the 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ends with him calling on everyone to defeat the B.C. Liberals, which he referred to as “those buggers,” this does nothing to build bridges between teachers and government. It does nothing to build trust in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide, and everybody loses when that happens. Our children lose, their teachers lose, and the parents of those children also lose when public education in the province of British Columbia becomes partisan.

Let’s step back. Let’s let this bill die on the order paper and reintroduce it next year, once a more thorough consultation process has occurred. Let’s get it right, so that we can start rebuilding trust between teachers and government in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member. I will remind members of the use of language under standing rule 40.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 11 and join this side of the House in our opposition to this bill.

Once again, we are standing in this House and talking about education and, fundamentally, attacks on the public education system. This has been going on for 14 years. For 14 years this side of the House has been trying to defend the public education system against the vicissitudes and the cuts that it has seen. Once again, we are here talking about how important public education is, how important the boards of education are and local elected officials are against a government bill that….

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head described it as premature, that it should have gone out for consultation. I disagree with him, fundamentally. This is a deliberate piece of legislation. There is no question that we have a government that, for whatever reason, undervalues education, both in a dollar sense — we know that there is far too little money going into the education system — but in a philosophical sense also.

We have a very narrow approach to education, increasingly narrow, as we keep talking more and more about how we’re going to fit our square pegs into round holes or our round pegs into square holes with the jobs plan. We’re going to just train everybody so they are just ready to work at whatever jobs that may come up in the oil and gas sector.

There is a huge undervaluing of education by this government. We’ve seen, for many years, that the government has been willing to act illegally, has been willing to act without consideration and has been willing to undermine the public education system.

As other speakers have mentioned, we have just come out of a very long lockout where the teachers were out of the schools not of their own choice but out of the schools because they were locked out for many months. We have, ostensibly, five years of peace. What would we have at the start of this five years of peace? This bill.

I’m going to speak primarily on the views of the school districts in my constituency. I have three very distinct school districts in my constituency — school districts 72, 84 and 85. I’ve talked about them before in this Legislature.

[1525]

The words that the trustees have told me when I’ve had chats with them about this, conversations about this bill and what their thoughts about this bill are…. They’ve been described as a frustration. One chair said: “This has been thrown upon us. Why?” Another said: “We thought we were in discussion. We thought we were on the right track. Why is the government doing this?”

From the school trustees themselves, there is both…. People are perplexed, and they are fundamentally worried. They thought that there was agreement from this government to work collaboratively — they keep talking about co-governance. There was a real sense that something might be happening with the government willing to work with school boards.

What school boards are now seeing is that this is clearly not the case, that we have an increasing centralization of the system, where power is put into the minister’s hand and we don’t quite know what sort of power it is. Like so much of the legislation we’ve been discussing in this House in the last few months, since this session started, a lot of it is in regulation. What that means, having it in regulation, is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, makes the decision.

The bill, however it is passed, leaves a lot of the decisions — a lot of the nitty-gritty, the details, the how, what the interpretations are — up to cabinet. And frankly, I have no trust in this cabinet. I don’t think it’s going to be choosing wisely on behalf of public education.

Going back to the school districts. They are very worried about this centralization of control. They feel that the rug has been pulled out from under them, because we had this whole concept of co-governance and that now, as far as they’re concerned, has been thrown out.
[ Page 7761 ]

What seems to be forgotten in all of this is that the school boards are democratically elected people, like we are. They go to the electorate and talk about the issues that matter, to them and to the electorate, specifically public education, and get voted in. They do not expect, in that, to have a heavy hand coming down from a minister who is saying: “You can do this; you cannot do that.”

Of course there are guidelines, of course there are regulations, of course there are requirements that you have to fulfil as a school trustee, but what they see here is a lot of the authority potentially being pulled away from them. That is really, really concerning for them. They are very worried about the loss of autonomy, and they see the language in this bill as, basically, vague and just all-encompassing.

There are certain lines here within the bill where we have…. For instance, in the administrative directive section, which is where a minister may order the board to do something in various areas — whether it is “in the public interest.” There is no definition of what the public interest is. Or whether it is a “matter specified by the minister,” without specifying what that matter might be. There is a lot of very vague references in this bill, in Bill 11, that are very, very troubling.

There is also, as I mentioned, this real sense that there is going to be a centralization in what a board can do — the fact that the minister can supersede a board decision, the fact that there is the appearance in this that boards have this shared services. I know that colleagues on this side of the House have used the BCeSIS as the model for shared services and the inappropriate way of that.

I’ve got a very simple way of shared services. We have three school districts in my constituency. School district 72 is the largest one. It’s Campbell River and the outlying communities — Quadra, Cortes, Reid, Sayward — a number of small schools and now two main high schools. A very vibrant school district.

The needs of school district 72 are very, very different from the needs of school district 84, which is the west coast of Vancouver Island, where there are 400 students in the whole school district. That is much smaller than many, many high schools and many elementary schools in this province, I should imagine. So that is the whole school district, and within school district 84, there are four very distinct communities.

There is Gold River, which is the central community where the high school is based. There is Tahsis, where you have, 64 kilometres down a logging road, an elementary school and high school combined, and people graduate from there. You’ve got Zeballos, likewise. You approach Zeballos…. These are all in Nootka Sound.

[1530]

Zeballos. You go 42 kilometres down a very uncomfortable logging road — which I’ve raised many times with the Ministry of Forests, to please try and fix this logging road because we have a lot of school kids going back and forth along it. We have the school in Zeballos. Again, it is a small school but goes up to high school. And we have Kyuquot, which is…. You go beyond Zeballos on this lousy logging road — Minister of Forests, please hear — out to Fair Harbour. You get on a boat, and you go out to Kyuquot. It is a small First Nations community — the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nation — who have, again, a school there that has very different needs.

Even within a school district, it would be very hard, at times, to do shared services, let alone when you’re talking about the needs of combining three school districts in my constituency or looking at the needs of Vancouver Island West, in school district 84 — to compare them to Surrey. The languages are very different. The needs are very different. Shared services would not necessarily work.

Of course, there are going to be some agreements of, you know, purchasing to try and get cheaper supplies — come in and deal with another school district and maybe get better purchasing or things like that. But if we’re looking at one-size-fits-all of a system, such as the computer system that was introduced to much failure before, BCeSIS, or other systems, they don’t necessarily work right across the board. And, as I say, they wouldn’t necessarily work even within the North Island riding, a constituency with its three school districts.

Again, school district 85 is very rural. It’s still got schools in Woss and Sointula. In Alert Bay we’ve got elementary schools. We’ve got high schools in Port McNeill and Port Hardy. We’ve got elementary schools and elementary junior schools in Port Alice — elementary schools all the way up through Port McNeill and Port Hardy, again.

The needs here, again, are very different, and the school trustees recognize this. They know that they are working for their communities, and they know that, yes, there are broad issues. They come together as the School Trustees Association and talk about the needs provincially, and we need to do that. We’re only a population of four million, and we do need to talk provincially and have that overriding ethos that brings us together and the commitment to public education that brings us together. But they are all very aware that they are small and vulnerable rural school districts.

They’ve been fighting very hard. And some of our vulnerable rural school districts have been fighting very hard the diminution of a budget after many, many years of government cutbacks and the downloading, of having to pay for the MSP, for staff, for increased B.C. Hydro, for on and on and on that the school districts have to pay for, which is coming at the cost of what should be our excellent public education system.

One of the things — and you start to feel like maybe it’s a conspiracy theory, but having been talking about what this government’s been doing with education for the last 14 years — really is: is this all a ruse to bring in the massive cuts, the $54 million of cuts that the government has
[ Page 7762 ]
brought in, in this budget? Is this a way of doing it by saying: “Well, we’re going to have shared services. We’re going to have the minister saying what can and cannot be done. School boards have their authority on what they can and can’t do, but we’ll give you the real details later.”

I mean, is this just a way of cutting the $54 million? I have to, in all conscience, say that cuts to the school districts are coming at a time where there is, proportionally, an increase to private education and the funding that goes from the public purse into the private sector, which really does damage our public school systems.

The minister has really frustrated, caused huge frustrations and huge nervousness among the boards. As I say, the chairs of the boards and other board members in my constituency are very worried. I’m not sure they’re surprised anymore. I know that some of the board members have said: “Well, what do we expect?” But they feel that their trust has been betrayed.

[1535]

That’s a very damaging relationship, because when you look at the way a school board works, and I know many members of this legislature have been members of school boards, it’s a bit like how a local authority works — a municipal council or…. Whether it’s a village or a city or a regional district, they tend to be non-partisan. They’re working for the best interests of their community. Here they feel the very heavy, partisan hand has come down on them.

There has been huge fear — particularly, again, among the smaller school districts — of amalgamation, where they would lose the distinct being that they are. They see that both the shared services and the minister’s ability to bring directives to boards could really undermine their autonomy and their sense of self and their unique identity.

I think this is one of the things that this bill misses and this government misses, that there is a unique identity among school districts, and: what is the way that education is delivered to different communities? It is delivered, in some ways, really struggling because communities are working very hard with very few resources, because we have this ridiculous per-pupil funding system where the rural school districts are particularly badly hit. They get less and less money and still are expected to do more with it.

We have fantastic fundraising so kids can go off and have trips, whether it be coming to Victoria or international trips. You see amazing work being done in the school districts, but that’s coming from the school districts, from the teachers, from the parents, from the people who are doing the hard work. It’s no help from this government.

The group from Gold River has just come back from a fantastic trip to Italy. That was done through the hard work of the principal of Gold River Secondary School and through the hard work of the community of Gold River, who went out and fundraised and fundraised and fundraised to make sure that this could happen. There is huge goodwill within communities to make what should be a fantastic education system — to try and keep that open for kids. But it is really, really hard work.

This has hugely damaged the trust and the sense of self that school districts and school boards have. That, particularly in small communities, is going to trickle down to the parents who can see what’s happening and see, again, that the people that they have entrusted to look over the political direction of the way their schools work, the whole way the school board works — that has been taken away from them.

The other issue that is of real concern is the change in, again, the centralization, the changes in professional development. There’s no question. In any profession…. Maybe ours is one of the few professions where we don’t have professional development as politicians. In professional development you are expected — and you should, and you want to, if you really are a good professional — to further your work and learn more and be able to give more to your students. You want to have good professional development. You want to be able to share that with your colleagues. You want to be able to really make the most of that.

Again, this bill is going to be centralizing this, with the minister controlling it, and setting up a whole new regime for the standards and what is expected. I think what is quite wonderful about professional development is how it works differently in each community, in each school district and across the province. I mean, you’re not working with school districts alone but regionally and provincially, and you really see some amazing things going on.

I know that for some parents, they just see professional development as a problem for them because it means they’ve got to find something — either child care or ensure that their kids are going to be okay that one day, the pro-D day. If done properly — and I do believe it is being done very well in most circumstances, without the minister’s heavy hand — it can and should be really, really effective.

The minister deciding that he is going to impose professional development on teachers, I think particularly after we’ve had, as I started my remarks, a very bitter, very nasty dispute between the teachers and this government, where if you talk to…. I don’t know how many teachers the minister has talked to — or members on that side of the House. I’m talking to teachers very regularly, and I ask them, just in casual conversation: “How’s it going? What’s it like to be back?”

[1540]

They’re not happy. They don’t think there’s much being solved here. There is a real anger simmering. There has been an anger simmering since they went back to work last fall, and it is still there. They are tired, they’re burnt out, and they don’t feel that much has changed. To have
[ Page 7763 ]
this imposed on them, on top of what has already gone forward in, to be honest, not just the last year, the last 14 years…. You’ve not got a happy group of people there.

Teachers, it goes without saying, are the ones who are so important. I mean, it’s disrespectful of any profession to treat them like that. They are the ones who are sharing that knowledge and the information and engaging our young people, whether they are the youngsters, the toddlers in kindergarten or the 18-year-olds who are about to launch into their lives. These are the people who are engaging and sharing and imparting knowledge, the ones who are supposed to be invigorating people. If they are tired and disillusioned because of what has gone before — and then, despite everything, we get this bill…. It’s very, very distressing.

What’s very intriguing with this bill is…. You know, we on the opposition do consider the legislation which is put in front of us. As is well known, there are some times we support the legislation, and some times we oppose it.

What’s very interesting in the way that this government approaches education is how they get everybody’s backs up straight away, even the B.C. School Trustees Association, who are not usually particularly vociferous. They don’t politicize things. They’re not very loud. In these circumstances, they have come very strongly in opposition to this.

The timing of their annual general meeting, just a couple of weeks ago, where…. Many of my trustees from school districts 72, 84 and 85 attended, and they were all engaged in this debate. When talking to them, they were all saying, “We had our AGM. Do you know what came out of it?” and would start reading the resolutions. I mean, three resolutions came out of it. There is real, real concern that this is going to impact them so badly.

Their motion was immediately withdrawing the sections that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, which I think would be a very fair start, specifically where it adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where the bill would amend the special adviser provision and where shared-services providers are designated by the Minister of Education.

These all impinge on the autonomy of boards of education — all three areas. The administrative directives, the special adviser and the shared services all impinge on this. We are talking about, as I said, people who are engaged locally and, I believe, know what is good for their local communities. They also advocate strongly against the erosion of local board of education autonomy, which is what we’re talking about. They want people to know about this. This is one of the things that….

One of the school trustees I talked to said: “Well, I’m not sure what will happen.” I said: “Unfortunately, unless the government decides to, for once, listen to this side of the House or to think quite logically, it’s very likely that this bill will pass because the government has got a majority.” There have been some bills that haven’t been enacted, that we’ve passed in this House and have never actually become active. It’s likely that on this one, because of the political nature of the government’s approach to education, that this will become enacted.

The trustees have said: “So what do we do?” We just go out and talk to people. Our only recourse is going to talk to parents, community leaders and people in our communities about what is happening again to education and the centralization of the control.

The School Trustees Association also wants a review of the intent of the legislation and the 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 process or resulting regulations.

[1545]

This does go to what my colleagues have been saying — the lack of consultation, the lack of involvement in this. I mean, this came out of nowhere. We had the co-governance that had been signed and that everybody was believing was the way forward. This basically came out of the blue.

Whether the minister has opened the door to the school trustees and others and said: “Well, we are in the debate stage still. We haven’t got to the committee stage. We’re quite willing to listen to amendments if you can put some forward….” We’ve seen in other bills in the orders of the day many amendments to bills that have already been tabled by the government, including one bill where they even changed the title of the bill. It’s quite an extraordinary group of amendments, which shows, again, how hasty the government has been in putting forward legislation.

On this, however, I don’t think that the government has been hasty. I think that the government has its own plans. It knows what it wants to do — and that is, undermine the public education system.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why. I am completely at a loss to understand what this government doesn’t like about public education, why it is not willing to invest in the potential that we have here in B.C. The potential is in our young people and the potential through our education system. Public education is such a fantastic opportunity for everyone. It gives people opportunity. It’s a great start to life. It’s a fantastic equalizer, investing in public education, allowing every young person that equality of opportunity.

Again, I refer to the fact that we have in B.C. this very strange system where we put public dollars into some of the most expensive fee-paying schools. That really makes no sense. However, what we’ve seen from the bill is yet another, I would say, almost vindictive attack on the public education system.

I would say it is a very deliberate move. It is definitely wanting to centralize the system. It gives the minister
[ Page 7764 ]
much more control, without being honest with people and saying: “This is the control.” It’s saying, “We will deal with it in regulation. We will deal with it as in the public interest or as specified by the minister,” and on and on. We have many examples in this bill where there isn’t clarity. We may do this, may do that.

I think that instead of bringing around what had been described as the potential for years of peace in our education system, it is opening the doors for, effectively, a much bigger war. It is giving a minister a huge amount of power. It is not being clear about why it is doing this.

Once again, this government is fundamentally undermining our public education system through this bill. That is why I’m standing here opposing the bill. That’s why my colleagues on this side of the House will be opposing this bill.

With that, I take my place and let others stand and participate in the debate.

D. Routley: Thank you to my colleague from North Island for her eloquent remarks in defence of public education.

For ten years I’ve been in this House, and previous to serving as an MLA, I served as a school trustee. My grandmother, mother and sister were or are teachers, and my father was a school administrator.

When people ask me why I entered politics, I jokingly say two words: Gordon Campbell. Really, what drove me into politics was a sense that our public services — a balanced society with a thriving private-sector economy, vibrant, and supported by thriving public services — were the balance that British Columbians appreciate and need. It was in defence of these public services that have come under attack, 14 years of withering and calculated attack by the B.C. Liberal government, that has caused me to become publicly involved in the first place.

[1550]

I look back on what’s happened, and it is really quite an amazing tale. I think this bill is just the latest element of B.C. Liberal legislation that is provocative. It’s designed to achieve a certain, calculated goal.

The four words I would use to characterize this in second reading — where we describe the basic philosophy of a bill — are provocation, incursion, unilateralism and authoritarianism. Those are the elements that are pushed forward in this bill.

If we look at the measures that have been taken to undermine the authority of school boards — locally elected school boards, an essential part of what people consider to be our modern democracy in British Columbia — then we have to consider: what is the intent?

If the B.C. Liberal government is saying that their intent is to provide some sort of clarity or efficiency, some sort of expediency, then they’re asking us to trust them on that, because so much of this bill is to be defined through regulation.

In this question being posed by the government — this “trust us” — we have to look at the government’s record in order to make a judgment. I’m sorry, but I believe that this government has a record of absolute distrust and dishonesty in dealing with public education, teachers and the education issues of this province.

When I look back to when the Premier was Education Minister and the bill stripping the teachers’ contract was introduced, if you take the consequence of that single act, which cost this province tens of millions of dollars and the embarrassment of having been rebuked by the Supreme Court for having trampled over the constitutional rights of citizens of this province, namely our teachers, it’s both embarrassing and hugely costly to the public purse.

Then another element of the bill is a move to a different approach to data collection and potentially data sharing of the information of students. If we look there to the government’s record with its colossal failure in introducing the BCeSIS system of student data handling and management, we see many, many tens of millions of dollars more wasted.

We’ve seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by this government through foolhardy and malicious acts that have been rebuked by the courts, and incompetence in introducing systems to the education sector. We have to just shake our heads at the dismal failure that that represents — the dismal failure of students, the dismal failure of the future of British Columbia, and the dismal failure of the continuity and potential of so many young people.

Looking back to the beginning of the B.C. Liberal government, with the current Premier as Education Minister, they introduced some particular measures that were designed not to openly attack public education but to, in a sense, sever the tendons. The body still stands with muscle and skeleton but no tendon to action that. What I mean by that is that certain key elements….

Per-student funding was introduced. Yes, school boards before the B.C. Liberal government came to power had complained about the siloed funding where there were, essentially, five sectors of funding — maintenance, general instruction, special education, administration, busing. These were all separate funding envelopes, and there was no potential to move funds from one to another — very inflexible.

[1555]

Districts called for flexibility, and the B.C. Liberals cynically said: “We’ll give you flexibility. We’ll give you one envelope with all the funding for each student.” Now, this was cynical, and I think it’s relevant to this bill, because this bill asks us…. This bill, in effect, undermines both teacher professionalism and the authority of boards and asks us to trust the government going forward.

The per-student funding and the granting of an envelope of funding per student was cynical because it attached funding to a diminishing number of students.
[ Page 7765 ]
Funding was guaranteed to decline. A few tiny measures were put in place to cushion the blow of that drastic move, but in a sense, it was still driving funding down. So if we lost 10 percent of the student population, the B.C. Liberal government could increase funding by 2 or 3 percent per student, and they could come into this House and say: “We’re giving more funding per student than we ever have.” But because it’s attached to a declining enrolment, the actual dollars to districts declined. The actual services to students declined.

Minister after minister had the nerve to stand in this House and say: “What? There’s no problem. Who’s complaining? Why are you complaining? We’re giving more funding per student than you’ve ever had.”

Every Minister of Education of the last ten years I have asked to manage my daughter’s allowance. I could double her allowance, and the government could download the increased salary that they dictated — through orders, breaking contract negotiations with teachers and un-negotiated settlements — and ordered school districts to pay without funding. They could download onto my daughter’s allowance that increase. They could download onto my daughter’s allowance the MSP premiums, which doubled. They could download onto my daughter’s allowance her share of the hydro increase, which skyrocketed.

None of these were funded. No cushion was given to school boards. School boards for years have had to cover those deficits imposed by B.C. Liberal policy.

At the end of the week, when she comes to me and says, “Dad, I don’t have money for these extra costs,” I can simply send her to the minister, and the minister can explain: “No, Madeline. In fact, you have more allowance per child than you’ve ever had before. What are you complaining about?”

It’s ridiculous. It causes a deep cynicism. This government has failed the education system and everyone in it, from students to teachers to parents. The broader economy, and British Columbians in general, have been failed by a failure of the B.C. Liberal government to uphold the standards of education in British Columbia.

While they can point to very narrow achievement results, which can be interpreted as being exceptional, those results are delivered by overburdened teachers like my sister, who has eight IEPs, with one more pending, in a split class of grades 3, 4 or 5 students, with three other students with behavioural needs waiting for assessment. She does get a teacher’s aide, but that’s another management burden on her.

She’s a dedicated teacher, following in the footsteps of her grandmother and her mother. My mom was one of the teachers who, in every school, the most difficult kids were given to because she was so good with those students. She was burned out and left the profession early. Now my sister is considering leaving the profession she loves because this government is failing her, failing her students and failing all of us.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The Minister of Community Development can thump her desk and be proud of their record. But their record has been one of undermining public services. As they drive the standards down in public education, they drive students into the private school system.

The public school system had, when they came into power, nine out of ten students — nine to one. If you took one student out of that nine and forced them into the private system, you were losing about 12 percent in the public system, along with the funding, choking the extras — the field trips, the band programs, those things that are the essential experiential aspects of education — while moving one to the private side, where they already had one, which is a 100 percent increase in enrolment.

[1600]

They have caused a huge upsurge, proportionally, in the private system at the expense of the public system. This has been designed, and now they ask us: “Trust us. Trust us because we want more authority. Trust us because we think we have a better approach to professional development. Trust us.”

Well, that per-pupil funding measure was accompanied by the loss of catchment areas. In other words, if you lived in a certain part of a town, you could send your kids to any school in the district. You no longer had to send them to the school within your catchment area.

This essentially created a mimicking of charter school movements in the United States. All that was lacking was the voucher. You didn’t give them the voucher. They couldn’t take it to whatever school they wanted. But when they took their child to a different school, they took along with them the funding. It ghettoized the most difficult schools in the province at the expense of students and teachers, at the expense of the society that we all live in.

This is a deliberate and calculated attack on public education, a creation of chaos and uncertainty in classrooms that has lasted 14 years. There is now more than a generation of students that have gone through our system with this diminished standard.

Now, one of the teachers I respect the most in my life…. He isn’t teaching anymore. He was a minor professional hockey player before he was a teacher — a goalie — so it could be said that he took lots of blows to the head, but somehow he still manages to be one of the smartest people I’ve ever met.

He told me once that, yeah, you know, they’ll protect the core areas — the math, the science, the areas that are tested and compared internationally — so that these characters over here can beat their desks and defend the record of their pathetic government on education. But when it comes to the….

Is that what you remember, Mr. Speaker? I doubt it. I doubt math tests and science tests are what you remember about school, even though I know you are a brilliant per-
[ Page 7766 ]
son in all of those fields. But what you remember, I would wager, is the experience of school: being on a school team, being on a school field trip, being in a school club, the extra time teachers give to you when you have needs that aren’t necessarily being met in that core curriculum.

Those are the things that have been lost, and they are difficult to measure. Those are the things that every teacher knows they can no longer provide because of the burden that has been placed on them by the measures of this government. And yet the government that did that now wants to take control of their professional development? It seems hard to believe, really, that this is happening. The downloading of costs has had its calculated toll on schools.

When I was a wee lad, my dad, who was the superintendent of maintenance in the school district that I lived in — in other words, he was in charge of the buildings, the custodial services, the busing and the grounds — would take me out with him touring the schools. We would go through the schools, and he would inspect the work that was being done.

I remember the standards. I remember the commitment of the tradespeople, of the teachers, of my dad. The buildings were in exceptional condition. If there were problems, they were pointed out, work orders went in, and they were repaired.

I remember going with him down to the high school, which was a block from our house. And after my long, meandering life experience, I now live again a block from that same school, about three houses from the house I lived in as a kid.

I remember I had my soccer ball with me, and I was booting it along. My dad was looking at the outside of the building. He was kind of preoccupied with some peeling paint and the odd little bit of the school that wasn’t in perfect repair. Then he tried to impress me by booting my ball really hard, but he booted it right onto the roof of the school. We had to get a tradesman to help us get the ball down.

What I remember is him being distracted by the condition of the building. That school now is a disgrace. I’m sorry. I apologize now to the tradespeople who struggle to keep it in good repair, because it’s not their fault.

[1605]

It’s the fault of this crew over here and successive Education Ministers who have starved our school districts to the point where our schools are in terrible, terrible decline, physically but also in terms of what we can offer children in a broader, deeper way.

When the current Education Minister was asked about the increase in MSP premiums and hydro rates, and school boards around the province were complaining that they could not meet these extra costs, what was that minister’s suggestion, Mr. Speaker? You may not remember, but I do. He said that perhaps they should close more schools and then they wouldn’t have to heat those schools. Yeah, this is his commitment to public education. This is what we get in British Columbia. This is the sad and sorry state to which we have declined under B.C. Liberal administration of the public school system.

You know, the minister and the Premier hector the school districts about their administrative spending and then exaggerate its level by over 100 percent. In fact, the administration costs of school districts in the province were slightly less than half of what the Premier seems to think they are. They’ve already pulled down every low-hanging apple and orange on whatever fruit tree they were looking at. That’s all gone.

They now, in this building, want to order school districts to partner in shared-services agreements. In Nanaimo our school district is already doing that, not with other school districts but with local governments. They’re already sharing costs wherever they can. Why? Well, because it’s efficient and they can deliver more services to students, but primarily because this government has underfunded them to the point where they have turned over every stone. They’ve emptied every cupboard. Every cupboard is bare. There is nowhere else for them to cut.

I’d like the minister to come and sit in my constituency office when the parents of special needs students, who…. They know that if they suffer from something like autism, they have a very limited time during which their disability or their challenge can be successfully addressed. They wait for years just to be assessed, and then, after waiting for years, there are no funds. Programs are designed, a plan is made, but it isn’t supported.

These members know it, because those parents go into their offices too. They may not see it in their eyes, because they rarely meet with them.

Interjection.

D. Routley: They laugh. It’s funny. The member for Parksville-Qualicum thinks it’s funny.

Hon. Michelle Stillwell: I didn’t say it, so don’t put it on the record.

D. Routley: I think that everyone in this province expects that our futures are collective, our futures are tied in with one another, our futures are not separate. There isn’t this classism in B.C. that seems to be being imposed by the B.C. Liberal government. People in B.C. expect that we will all start at the starting line together with public education and health care, giving our children and ourselves an equal start; that we will enter a competitive, free market economy that thrives because of the great public services that are the underpinning and the foundation of it.

What we get instead are diminishments. We’ve had hundreds of millions of dollars of downloaded costs ab-
[ Page 7767 ]
sorbed by school districts already. They have been doing their best to respond.

[1610]

Many districts have protested and have pushed back against the government, which is a political inconvenience to government. Government’s response is not to hear those districts, not to listen to those challenges and those pleas but to move to undermine and disenfranchise, to move to take away authority from local districts, to move to undermine professionalism and autonomy of teachers.

When I was in my 20s, I lived in Japan and taught English. I remember so many people in Japan telling me how much they respected the Canadian public education system, despite the fact that they themselves score very highly in these same core rankings of math, science, etc., that the government refers to when they claim exceptional performance.

The people who talk to me about public education here said: “The extra things you do with your students, the way you teach your young people to think for themselves, to be critical, is something we respect.” In Japan there is a word for doctor. It’s sensei. The same word, sensei, means teacher. They have the highest respect for teachers.

The notion that a government would intentionally create chaos, intentionally provoke teachers to strike, intentionally undermine public education, is almost like a suicidal effort by a society. Why on earth would we ever do what the B.C. Liberal government is doing?

Their own negotiator admitted in the court case that found the government guilty of having trampled on the constitutional rights of teachers that the government was intentionally trying to provoke a strike. We hear it all the time. We heard it from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, in fact — where we separate teachers from their union. The good parents and teachers struggle, while this terrible, ridiculous argument goes on between the government and the BCTF. This is a mischaracterization of what’s happening.

The BCTF is the democratically elected representative body of teachers. They represent teachers and are elected to do that every year. They faithfully represent teachers. They’re not some alien party, along with the government, creating chaos in our classrooms. The government is doing that by themselves. To suggest that it’s a ridiculous conflict between two parties does this abuse disservice.

It’s a little bit like two people going into an alley, and one of them comes out having been mugged. Then people say: “Well, they had a conflict. One party put the other to a mugging.” That’s what the B.C. Liberals have done to public education. The cultured argument that they are using is that somehow this alien, troublesome body, the BCTF, is their appropriate enemy.

Well, I would say that anybody who sets out on a prescribed, determined, deliberate campaign to undermine public education makes themselves an enemy of our economy, of our democracy and of our future. It’s not good enough to stand and deny the obvious. It’s not good enough to reply to the problems that people bring to the government by saying: “Well, we’ve got a balanced budget, so it’s all good.”

[1615]

When the balanced budget, if we can call it that, is paid for by deficits in classrooms, deficits in hospitals, deficits in the lives of people who struggle by the further impoverishment of people in a province where we have the highest levels of child poverty, the highest levels of inequality, by overburdening our public system with increased costs to their own government through MSP premiums, B.C. Hydro costs and imposed teacher wage settlements that were never funded — all of them designed to impose decreased standards on a system that we should all be doing everything we can to elevate and not deflate. But what we see is the opposite.

Even after ten years in this House it is an unbelievable kick in the gut when it happens, because I thought — I really did think — that we were here to uphold and elevate the public interest and elevate the interests of all British Columbians, be it through their environment, their economy or their social well-being.

What instead we see happen repeatedly, over and over again, is the government choosing winners and losers, picking battles and driving wedges instead of working together with people, consulting in a real way, listening to the citizens of British Columbia and delivering on their priorities. Their priorities go well beyond a nominally balanced budget that was achieved by robbing them of their birthright. That is not what British Columbians consider to be good governance.

Good governance means we take the challenges of our province and the assets of our province and we turn them to the benefit of our province. The primary asset of our province is its people. If we undermine the care and nurturing of people, we undermine the future of British Columbia.

This is just one more measure, one more nail driven into public education, one more piece. There were bigger ones, granted. There were smaller ones. This, again, is another step at undermining the well-being of the public service that is the core, the foundation stone, the cornerstone of our democracy. As critic for freedom of information and privacy protection, it is offensive that the government is deleting the title “non-disclosure of student records” and turning it into “student personal information.” They are taking away any notion that it’s an offence to improperly share student information.

Before this act it was an offence, under the Offence Act, for any employee of a school board to give away student information improperly. No longer. These are permissive amendments to privacy protections at a time when people expect this government, any government, all governments to act to increase the protection of privacy, not
[ Page 7768 ]
to undermine it. This is what this government is doing.

I will be voting against Bill 11, just as I’ve voted against all their education legislation, with pride.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 11, which is a series of proposed amendments to education statutes. It’s significant, as I join the debate, that the board of education of the Surrey district, the biggest public education district in the province by student numbers — some 70,000 students — passed a motion unanimously at its meeting just last Thursday.

[1620]

Just for the record, I want to read that motion. This is a letter addressed to the Minister of Education, dated April 24, 2015. The letter reads:

“Dear Hon. Minister:

“At its 2014-04-24 public meeting the board of education, school district 36, Surrey, unanimously adopted the following motion: that the board of education, school district 36, Surrey, ask government to immediately rescind Bill 11 and allow for a thoughtful and productive dialogue between the government and boards of education about the challenges facing our educational system and any legislative requirements required to promote a quality and sustainable public education system.

“We believe that the introduction of Bill 11 is neither reflective of our relationship with the Ministry of Education nor with the spirit of a co-governance relationship, as outlined in the BCSTA agreement. We believe that as stewards of Surrey schools, we have been strong, consistent and capable governors. We need to bring reliability and sustainability to the province’s education system. This can only be accomplished through a thoughtful and collaborative process.

“The board of education has a strong reputation that has been built up over many years. We are indeed concerned that the sections of Bill 11 that pave the way to forcing boards into projects through administrative directives will erode our authority to make local decisions.

“Sincerely,

“Shawn Wilson, Chairperson, board of education, school district 36.”

Copies were sent to the deputy minister, to the Surrey MLAs, to the trustees and to the executive.

That is, I think, a very strong letter from a group who are…. It’s not an NDP board. It’s not a board that ordinarily…. Perhaps to contrast it with the Vancouver school board — for which the Minister of Education seems to have a particular dislike. This is a board that governs, as I’ve said, the largest — by school population, over 70,000 students — school district in the province. It also has the record of — and this is in part a function of its size — the lowest administrative costs of any school district in the province. Two percent of their total budget is spent on administration.

Indeed, they have a record of progressive budgeting and making economies where they can. Laurae McNally, who is another trustee on the board and has been the chair over many years…. She has served, I believe, at least 25 years or three decades, and at various times she has been the chair of the board. She said the invitation to find low-hanging fruit was something that she couldn’t agree with because, as she said: “Those fruit trees were chopped down a long time ago.” In other words, there has been a consistent practice at this school board of finding administrative economies as they’ve gone along and trying to do…. And, I think, succeeding very effectively.

When the ministry fired the trustees of the Cowichan school district, the person that they chose to put in to run that school board in the absence of an elected board was the former superintendent of the Surrey school board. Recognizing that now there is a new superintendent, Jordan Tinney, who’s an exceptionally capable administrator by all reports, but the previous superintendent was the one chosen by the Ministry of Education and the minister to run the Cowichan district after the minister felt it necessary to fire the entire board.

That speaks of the confidence that the ministry has in the administrative capacity of Surrey and the prudent management of the resources that are provided to the board by the provincial government through the budgeting process.

I did speak with Shawn Wilson, the chair, yesterday in person. He was gracious enough to take my call. I also spoke with Jordan Tinney, the superintendent, just today. I wanted to ask a few questions about this letter that had been provided to myself, as a Surrey MLA, just to make sure that I understood what motivated them.

[1625]

What they both said was that they, as a board and as an administration, are not opposed to making economies in procurement. Indeed, they are working with the ministry on procurement. “Procurement” is a top-drawer word that really means buying stuff. Certainly, in terms of purchasing all the things that are necessary to run an enterprise like the Surrey school district, they’re quite supportive of efforts to pool resources, a very common tactic in purchasing, to get better prices and thereby save money.

Now, this is a fairly standard administrative practice, whether in the private sector or the public sector. In fact, just parenthetically, at the Public Accounts Committee there was a report about pooling in procurement by various health authorities. It’s not without its challenges. What was discovered there was that, particularly, various drugs in the computer systems of the different health authorities were labelled differently. So in order to decide on a common nomenclature, there was actually a fairly difficult and torturous administrative process to go through to decide what the common nomenclature was of any given drug.

So this process is not an instant solution. It’s not something that necessarily yields great dividends. Certainly, the Surrey school district is working with the ministry, is not opposed to it.

What they did say, though, is that on the procurement of some services…. There is a proposal, as part of this directive, to consolidate legal services. Notionally, there’s a
[ Page 7769 ]
certain logic to it. The idea was that if two school districts had a similar issue about a contract provision and they were getting a legal opinion, it really wasn’t a necessary expense to get two separate legal opinions on roughly the same provision in the collective agreement.

What they are concerned about, what Mr. Tinney and Mr. Wilson both expressed to me, was that given the way in which Surrey operates — and some of the problems are unique to its size, as the biggest school district — they were concerned that what was going to be required was when a grievance is filed, that it be submitted to BCPSEA, and then it would be monitored there. It was difficult to see what the gain in administrative efficiency would be by undertaking that kind of process, by sending something out and then receiving it back, other than someone else would be obliged to keep track of grievances and perhaps comment upon them. That’s in negotiation.

I suppose what they aren’t saying…. This is my interpretation, not what they said. I want to be fair to what they said to me, because they were quite generous in terms of giving me the time and quite precise in terms of what their comments were. They were concerned that the provisions of this act, and that’s indeed in the letter…. “We are indeed concerned that the sections of Bill 11 that pave the way to forcing boards into projects through administrative directives will erode our authority to make local decisions.”

Given their reservations about joint procurement of legal services, I would interpret, using that phrase in the letter as a guide, that they are fearful about being forced into a project that requires them to do that when there will be no gain in efficiency, no cost savings, yet they will be obliged to do it by executive fiat of the Minister of Education alone.

One only has to look at some of the commentary on BCeSIS. For those who aren’t familiar with the acronym, this was a software program for keeping student records that was imposed by the ministry upon the various school boards, and they were obliged to pay for it.

[1630]

One commentator who is fairly authoritative in the media, Geoff Johnson, who is a retired superintendent of schools and writes a fairly regular commentary on issues of education administration in the province, described BCeSIS thus: “BCeSIS is the extremely expensive, disastrously flawed centralized data system initiated by the Education Ministry to collect and process data on all students. It has cost school districts large amounts of unfunded staff time just trying to get it to work.”

Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of a retired school superintendent who’s very familiar with the process. I’m sure, others — certainly, other school districts — have had a very similar experience with that.

There is a danger, where the minister decides, by executive fiat, to just simply say: “You’re going to do this. We don’t care what your objections are. We think it’s good for you.” But “you’re going to save money because that’s our judgment” may not take account local circumstances and, perhaps, more careful or nuanced considerations of the program.

I suppose and I think that the concern of those districts is quite legitimate, given the experience of some projects imposed from the ministry, such as BCeSIS. But Surrey is careful to say that they do support shared services, and they are working with the ministry. But the benefit of some of these proposed purchasing systems is not at all obvious.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Now, the other thing that’s very striking about this letter is that they asked the government to immediately rescind Bill 11, so this is not just: “Well, let’s talk about it a little bit more.” That’s some of the members opposite. Some of the Liberal MLAs have said, and I think the minister has said…. I did read his speech. I think I deserve some credit or some sympathy for that.

He seemed to suggest that the suggestion that there hadn’t been consultation on this bill was really without foundation and that this was just part of an ongoing Socratic dialogue between the minister and the boards of education. They were going back and forth on these topics all the time. And the idea that, somehow, this violated the co-governance model or that there hadn’t been a proper dialogue was simply without any foundation.

Frankly, I don’t accept that. The reason I don’t accept that is because this board — not an NDP board, not a board known for its outspoken nature — has used very strong language to say, and I’ll read the quote again: “We believe that the introduction of Bill 11 is neither reflective of our relationship with the Ministry of Education nor with the spirit of co-governance relationship as outlined in the BCSTA agreement.”

They are saying very clearly that, as a board and as an administration, they disagree with the minister’s view of this entirely. In fact, I asked Mr. Wilson if the Minister of Education — who is a Surrey MLA, although I think he still lives in Langley, but a Surrey MLA nonetheless — contacted the chair of the largest board in the province before introducing Bill 11 — in the spirit of co-governance, which is a document solemnly signed by both parties and spoken of occasionally. He said: “No, never heard from him at all.” I don’t think he was particularly…. I mean, obviously, the minister is busy. He didn’t want to criticize him for that, but it is a fact that there wasn’t that kind of discussion in advance.

You have this Surrey board taking that position, and this is something that is not only shared by the Surrey board of education and its trustees and its senior staff. The British Columbia School Trustees Association, which is the organization that all school boards and trustees from all of the school districts belong to, at their recent annual general meeting passed motions.
[ Page 7770 ]

They demanded that the government of B.C. “immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education — 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 provision and where shared-service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.”

[1635]

The BCSTA publicly advocates strongly against the erosion of local board of education autonomy in Bill 11, and there’s a further refinement about talking about it, should it pass.

This is the body that speaks for all school trustees. Again….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I know there are some objections to democratic process by members opposite. They would prefer that a motion that passed the BCSTA is not a valid one. I don’t know. Maybe they don’t feel that majority should rule in the BCSTA.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Certainly, it wasn’t unanimous. I didn’t say it was unanimous. But it did pass, and that’s significant.

In addition, the British Columbia Teachers Federation, with which the Minister of Education professed a new renaissance of goodwill and good feeling, was not spoken to — other than very shortly before the bill was introduced.

I’m quoting the president of the BCTF: “The changes to professional development were, unfortunately, announced without consultation. Government staff did say there would be a two-year consultation, and we will hold them to that commitment.” They also said in their news release: “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 two major bodies representing school trustees and representing teachers have expressed their disagreement with the intent and significant aspects of Bill 11.

The minister said that the purpose of the bill was to — he gave four purposes — build a framework for continuing professional development for all certified teachers in the province. That was point 1. Clearly, the BCTF disagrees with that. Professional bodies, often autonomous professional bodies, create their own courses and their own course of studies in professional development. As professionals, generally, they are quite responsible and regard it as part of their professional duty to continue to examine their skills, upgrade their skills, learn new things and develop their ability to perform at a high level in their chosen profession.

The idea that the minister is going to arrogate to himself or herself the power to control the professional development process, seems to be at variance with the notion of the teaching profession as a body of high-level and highly qualified professionals who have an interest and obligation, self-imposed, to keep their skills sharp and to learn new things in order to benefit the students that they teach. Clearly, that aspect of the bill is certainly disputed, and one would question why it was included in the bill.

Secondly, the minister said that this bill would facilitate the delivery of shared services among school districts. “Facilitate,” I think, is a word that disguises the true intent of what the minister has in mind. It will give him or her the power to impose a shared service upon a school district. In the case of BCeSIS, if this legislation had been in effect, it would have been imposed upon the districts regardless of their view of whether it was going to be efficacious or not.

It does undermine local autonomy. It does undermine the co-governance model, as the Surrey board has so eloquently said in their letter of April 24, 2015. It’s far from part of being what the Surrey school board calls “a thoughtful and collaborative process.”

[1640]

Again, it’s difficult to understand the motivation of the minister and of this particular piece of legislation, unless it’s designed deliberately — and it would seem legislatively that’s what it is — to let the minister impose his will without the necessity of a thoughtful and collaborative process — simply decide by himself.

He doesn’t even, apparently, have to go through the cabinet. He can simply decide on his own — I suppose subject to some advice, if he so chooses to take it — and simply impose it upon school districts. That seems to be a backward step. Certainly, that explains the strong opposition of the BCSTA and of the very reasonable and thoughtful Surrey school board.

The third justification for the legislation, taken from the minister’s speech, is that one of the goals was “a more flexible accountability framework within the K-to-12 system that…we have the flexibility to meet the needs as they’re identified and as research about other practices around the world….”

It’s a bit vague; it’s not entirely clear. It’s not entirely clear why…. I take it that…. Certainly, the minister on the other side will praise British Columbia as a leader in some areas of education, theory and practice relative to other jurisdictions, so why this is necessary, I’m not sure.

There is some abolition of some recent reforms — superintendents of achievement and school councils — and a change in that approach, but it’s not entirely clear what the minister is getting at here because, again, it’s enveloped in some fairly unclear language.

The final provision is — again, quoting the minister, be-
[ Page 7771 ]
cause I don’t want to deviate from the minister’s words on this momentous document — to align “the provisions on the use of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” Now, I’m not sure why that was felt to be necessary. We’ve heard our critic, who is the critic for Citizens’ Services and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, offer his explanation of what this does — that it, in fact, weakens the privacy protections that are presently available to students and their records.

I accept his explanation over that of the minister. The minister doesn’t really deny that. He uses, again, some bureaucratic language about aligning the provisions, so it’s not clear what he’s talking about exactly or what he may mean by “aligning the provisions” in the words that he chooses.

Those seem to be the provisions of the bill, and they are opposed by a variety of organizations and, in addition, individual districts beyond the Surrey district. This is basically non-partisan. A number of school boards of varying political stripes have expressed very similar points of view.

Prince George school district trustee Sharel Warrington called the changes under Bill 11 significant and worrisome. “It’s very concerning, and its implications we…don’t know until we’ve had a…good chance to look at what it means for the board of governance, what it means for board autonomy, what it means in a lot of ways.”

The Delta school district chair, Laura Dixon, in a letter to the minister said: “We have been democratically elected to safeguard the resources of our district on behalf of our constituents. We must, therefore, speak against any legislation that would alter this mandate by placing an unelected special adviser who is not accountable to our community in front of our trustees’ ability to serve our community.” That’s from a letter of April 22 to the minister.

[1645]

The Vancouver school board chair — again, the new, incoming chair, not the previous chair Patti Bacchus, with whom the Minister of Education has fenced on several occasions at least…. His view — he says that the bill seems to rearrange where the minister’s powers are written in the legislation. He says he’s reshuffling the chairs of the Titanic.

Okanagan-Skaha board chairwoman Linda Van Alphen is concerned about the prospect of imposing new shared services on school districts, given some previous failed attempts. She pointed out that some past efforts to harmonize B.C.’s 60 public school districts have been a flop. “I have a lot of problem with this, especially when you think that the biggest shared service we have in the province is the student information system, and it’s never worked well.”

That’s the BCeSIS student data software program that I referred to earlier that caused no end of problems and a vast amount of unpaid staff time — that is, unpaid by the province — in order to try and administer a software system that they had imposed.

Okanagan-Skaha superintendent Wendy Hyer says, and I’m quoting from a story in the Penticton Herald, March 31, 2015:

“Supt. Wendy Hyer…fears coordination of teacher training could be left to districts, which are already facing a $29 million administrative cut. ‘Who do they think is going to track all of professional development and hours of the teachers? Is it the teacher regulation branch? What’s the consequence if a teacher doesn’t meet their obligated number of hours? Is it downloading another task to us? In my mind it just seems they keep cutting and cutting but also downloading things to districts.’”

Nanaimo school board chair Steve Rae said the proposed changes in Bill 11 are a smokescreen for the underfunding of education. “I’m all for consolidating services if it makes sense, but to me, all they’re doing is trying to take everyone’s eye off the ball. The fact is the provincial government continues to underfund education, so everyone complains, and look what happens. They threaten to take the powers away from the school boards.”

Those are just a few examples of the opposition, the comments that have been made. We know that this occurs as a part of a significant backdrop of a Premier who was the Minister of Education more than a decade ago — and earlier versions in earlier parliaments, although under the B.C. Liberal banner — and engaged in a very deliberate confrontational strategy with BCTF, the Teachers Federation.

We know from some of the evidence that was adduced in the court case — that is, evidence given under oath in a court by the chief negotiator — that the government was deliberately, not for legitimate labour relations purposes but because it furthered their own political strategy, trying to provoke a job action on the part of teachers because their calculation was that that would advance their political agenda. That was something that was under oath in a courtroom, so again, it’s not a question of making that up or leaving it to chance. That was the evidence given in a solemn legal proceeding.

Clearly, this bill is not necessary. I support the view of the Surrey board of education that the bill be, in their words, immediately rescinded and go back to a more respectful dialogue between the parties.

S. Robinson: Like my colleagues who have spoken here so well these last couple of days, I, too, am actually sad to take my place in the debate on Bill 11 second reading, the Education Statutes Amendment Act. I’m sad because public education is the greatest social equalizer, and this government does not demonstrate appreciation, respect or financial commitment to public education.

[1650]

This government, though, is very consistent, and I will give them that. They are consistent in continually attacking teachers, they are consistent in chronically underfunding public education, they are consistent in attacking those who work with our children, and now they
[ Page 7772 ]
are pulling out the rug from our democratically elected school trustees.

It’s a fairly consistent modus operandi. Rather than ensuring that our schools, our teachers, our support workers, our administrators, our parents, our democratically elected school trustees and our students have the resources that they need to succeed, the resources that they need to be successful, this government instead continues to rally an attack on public education.

In October, after the longest job action that this province has seen, where teachers were standing up for quality education for students — a job action that this Premier provoked by continually poking teachers in the eye — a Premier said at the end, when all was said and done, that it’s time to heal.

All right, it’s time to heal. That means we that are going to focus on getting things back to normal. We’re going to focus on dealing with the issues that were highlighted in this job action. That means we are going to have peace around public education.

But oh no. That’s not what we see here in Bill 11. What we see here in Bill 11 is another attack on another group of people who are committed to public education.

I’ve been trying to figure out what it is that this government is trying to get at. They say all the right words. They say things like “collaboration,” “cooperation,” “support.” I heard the minister say lots of things about working together, but their actions just do not follow their words.

From what I understand, in this legislation there are four significant pieces that are being addressed. When I read them, it’s like there’s this undertone that I hear when I read the words.

The first one is “building a framework for continuing professional development.” When you read the smaller print, it says it’s giving the minister the ability to impose his idea of professional development on teachers. That’s really what it’s about.

Then we have “facilitating delivery of shared services among school districts.” Now, this one I read to mean giving the minister the power to compel school districts to take part in shared services, whether they work or not, make sense or not. It’s just whatever the minister thinks is best.

The third area of change in this legislation is “updating the accountability framework for student learning” through reporting. It certainly sounds, when you read it more closely, that they’re looking to loosen restrictions on gathering information about our students.

The fourth element is “aligning the provisions on the disclosure of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act” — or to make it look like we’re not actually loosening the restrictions on gathering information about students.

Before I get into some of the content and the substance of these proposed changes, I think it’s really important to look at the process. This government talks about collaboration. It talks about co-governance. It talks about a working relationship. Well, I’ve been a family therapist for 20 years, and I have a few things to say about what it means to develop a working relationship.

In my 20 years of working with couples, families, parents, organizations and communities, helping them to work through some of their challenges in their relationships, I have to say that this government’s ability and willingness to consult, to develop and maintain relationships with their partners, leave a lot to be desired.

Let’s talk about consultation for a moment. Consultation is an investment in a relationship. It means going out, sharing information with your stakeholders, with your partners. It means asking them questions and hearing their responses. It means using your two ears and your one mouth. There is a saying: “God gave you that so that you should listen twice as much as you should speak.” Well, that’s not what we’re seeing from this minister and from this government.

We have learned that there was no consultation with stakeholders on this bill. They didn’t consult with teachers on the proposed changes to professional development. I’m not sure even how to wrap my head around that. How do you go out and say: “We know what’s best. We’re not even going to talk with you. We’re not going to even listen to what you have to say”?

[1655]

We hear time and time again from this government how they’re consulting with this stakeholder or another stakeholder. Actually, when we go and talk to that stakeholder, when we go and ask the question, “Were you consulted? Did they have a conversation with you?” we hear: “No” or “Well, they mentioned this, and this is what we said, but we didn’t hear anything back.”

I want to know exactly who the minister consulted with on this. Was it other ministers? Was it a friend? A family member? Who knows? The B.C. school trustees haven’t been consulted either. The BCTF hasn’t been consulted. So exactly who did the minister consult with? British Columbians, I think, deserve an answer, parents deserve an answer, students deserve an answer, and the stakeholders deserve an answer.

I think the minister talks about…. I heard him yesterday talk about accountability as a value that’s driving a piece of this legislation. Well, I think that it’s more about control than it is about accountability. I’d like to see the minister lead by example and be accountable to this House about who exactly he consulted with when drafting this bill. He has yet to be accountable on the process he used to develop this piece of legislation. I think it’s time for this minister to lead by example.

As a therapist, when I would see someone in a relationship make a unilateral decision without consultation…. I’ve seen it destroy relationships. I’ve seen the impact that those behaviours have on anything constructive that can come out of it.
[ Page 7773 ]

Imagine your partner decides, without consultation, without dialogue, to change how decisions are made in your household. Pretty hard to take. Not only that, your partner tells you that your existing household allowance that you have has to now pay for an increase in MSP payments, increase in hydro rates, and it has to pay for an increase in clothing for the kids because that’s the deal your partner negotiated with the kids, and you weren’t part of that deal. It’s part of what our school districts are dealing with.

Not only that, your partner is also the only one who has access to the bank account so that you have no power whatsoever to address the financial challenges that you face, and you still need to pay for all of those bills out of your weekly or your monthly household budget. Not only that, your partner is also telling you that you have no idea how to budget properly. It’s all your fault. They blame you, and they tell you that you’re incompetent that you can’t quite make ends meet. Then they proceed to tell you that you need to find ways to reduce your spending on these various, competing needs.

But it doesn’t end there. Your partner then tells you that they will determine which other households in your neighbourhood you can share with, in some of this purchasing power to make you more efficient. It might be your neighbour on your right. It might be your neighbour on your left. Perhaps it’s a neighbour down the street. Your partner will tell you who to work with so that you can share some of the cost burden that you now face.

If this couple appeared in my office, I would be most concerned about this terrible power imbalance. I would note the unilateral decision-making that is going on. That this is an abuse of power is what I would suggest and that it is going to destroy the relationship.

To be dismissive of the impacts, the ideas and the concerns of your partner is an abuse of power. To make demands on a relationship without consultation, without resources and without respect is an abuse of power. To dictate what your partner will do, how they’ll do it, when they’ll do it and what will happen if they don’t do it…. Well, that also is an abuse of power. That’s what we have here in Bill 11, and it makes me and many other British Columbians very, very sad.

Here’s what some of the B.C. school trustees have to say about the proposed legislation. In a media release that was sent out earlier this week, there’s a quote here from the B.C. School Trustees Association. “The lack of appropriate consultation on this bill is of great concern to our members. Our expectation as the elected representatives of school districts from across B.C. is that we would be directly involved in any process to draft any new legislation. This has not been the case.”

[1700]

It goes on to say: “There is no reason why we would not have been fully consulted and represented in the co-construction of this legislation. We have let government know our concerns and expectations.”

It begs the question: what was government thinking when they drafted this? What was the minister thinking about what they would be able to say to British Columbians about how they’re going to unroll this and how they’re going to work with their partners?

I do have to say I’m impressed that the B.C. school trustees are asking for reasonable accommodation. They note that there is time for government to fix this. They believe that government and the Minister of Education can correct the damage that they are doing to this relationship. The government can put this on hold and go back and do the proper thing, do the right thing — go back and consult, which is what they’re asking for, and be collaborative and consultative. It’s what British Columbians expect of their government.

This is what a marriage looks like, a good marriage. When a partner voices concerns about a problematic process, the other partner says: “Well, you know what, hon? You’re right. We should sit down and talk about this. I should listen to what you have to say. We need to discuss it, hash it out, debate it and really work all of the aspects of this so that we can come up with some sort of resolution.”

That’s when you have a working relationship. Dictating exactly how you think it ought to be is not a working relationship. That’s a dictatorship. A relationship is based on mutual respect and understanding, not based on abuse of power.

Perhaps the minister and this government will reconsider the direction that they’re heading in. Perhaps they will listen to the words spoken here in this House. Perhaps they will listen to the words spoken by the B.C. school trustees. Perhaps they will take the time to go and meet with their partners, get to work with them, listen to what they have to say, find ways to address their concerns and find ways to work together.

I want to talk a little bit about co-governance for just a moment. It’s an interesting concept, one that does get bandied about a fair bit by the minister. In school board documents they talk about the nature of the relationship between school boards and the government. So when I think about the word “co-governance,” a whole bunch of other words come to mind — things like cohabitate, live together, cooperate, work together. Co-governance — govern together.

The “co” part of the word describes how you’re going to work with the other party, that you will engage in an activity together. I’m not sure how unilaterally giving the authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects is “co” anything. There’s no “co” in that.

I’d like to read from another news release, when the Liberals did a news release on this bill. I thought that the quote from the minister was pretty interesting. Here it is: “The research is very clear that one of the most important ways to support students is to focus on quality teaching.”
[ Page 7774 ]
I don’t think anyone in the House here would disagree. We have amazing teachers who deliver fabulous quality teaching. The quote goes on to say: “That’s why these amendments set a foundation on which the province will work cooperatively with the teaching profession to build a truly modern framework for professional development.”

We have here in this release a quote from the minister, who is going to “work cooperatively with the teaching profession” — cooperatively, working together. So I am absolutely puzzled. I read the words, I know I understand the words, but the actions of this government continue to contradict what they are saying.

[1705]

When we talk about the piece of this legislation that deals with the teachers and working cooperatively, as the minister said, we find out that that’s actually not quite the case. Just as the minister and his government decided to do co-governance and work cooperatively with the trustees, where they are going to actually make unilateral decisions, it looks like they’re doing a similar kind of thing with the teachers. So they’re consistent. They are very consistent.

I really struggle with this notion that they talk about — building a framework for continued professional development. Really, what it means is that this government wants to have exclusive power to dictate what professional development looks like for teachers.

Well, I know a lot of professionals. I belong to a professional body. My husband belongs to a professional body. My circle of friends are doctors and lawyers and accountants. As professionals, we take that very seriously, and we participate in professional development as dictated by our respective colleges and associations and organizations. We operate as professionals and pay very close attention to being current.

In this instance, however, the government feels that that’s just not good enough, that they need to have special rules for teachers, that somehow they are a different group and a different breed and there needs to be different rules and different criteria for them.

Teachers do lots of professional development. They’re given opportunity to do that. I actually had a brief conversation with a teacher just this weekend. She had participated in the last professional development day around working with children with special needs in her class. Of course, we all know that children who have special needs and IEPs in classrooms aren’t getting the service and the supports that they need. So regular classroom teachers are left to pick up the pieces.

She participated in a professional development day that she said gave her the tools, most importantly, so that she could meet the needs of her students. Every teacher has different students — different kinds of students and different needs in their classrooms. She was able to get the tools that she needed so that she could be a better teacher.

She left that day feeling empowered and strong and capable and confident that she could meet the needs of all 28 children in her classroom, only to be met with a piece of legislation that said: “We don’t trust your ability to make decisions that will help you meet the needs of your classroom.”

She said she felt like she got punched in the stomach. She felt so disrespected. She thought: “Why am I teaching? What is the point? I don’t get to even have a say about the kind of training I need in order to meet the needs of my students.”

How is that respect for teachers? How is that even healing from the longest protracted job action that this province has seen? I mean, I’ve been a therapist for 20 years. I’ve worked with very complicated clients. I’ve worked with very difficult families. I’ve worked with challenged communities. I don’t know how to bridge this. I don’t know how to repair the kind of damage these kinds of legislative demands against teachers and against our school districts…. I don’t know how to repair those broken relationships.

I’m not sure why the B.C. Liberals seem to think that this system just isn’t accountable enough. Given that British Columbians can’t seem to figure out why this government seems to think the professional development system is broken, I thought I would just take a quick look at the minister’s service plan for 2015-16 and 2017-18. I thought maybe there would be something in there that would help me understand where this is coming from.

So I pulled it up, and I thought: “Oh, isn’t this really interesting? Goal 2 of this service plan is “effective support for teachers.” Objective 2.1 says “improved communication with teachers.”

There are two strategies listed under this objective. The first one: “Engaging with teachers to learn what they need to improve classroom practice and to feel effectively supported.” I’m going to read that again, because I think it’s important to understand what the words are in the service plan and, then, what this legislation does.

“Engaging with teachers to learn what they need to improve classroom practice and to feel effectively supported.” Engaging with teachers. Well, telling them that they’re not competent and not capable to determine their own professional development needs? I’m not sure how that is engaging with teachers. Certainly, they didn’t consult with teachers. And feeling supported? I don’t think that any of them are feeling supported right now.

[1710]

The second strategy is “finding new ways to share teachers’ knowledge of effective teaching practices across the education system.” So maybe this was what they really had in mind. But I can’t figure out how this legislation addresses that either.
[ Page 7775 ]

The second strategy is: “Finding new ways to share teachers’ knowledge of effective teaching practices across the education system.” Maybe this is what they really had in mind, but I can’t figure out how this legislation addresses that either.

The second objective, objective 2.2, says: “Improved support for teachers.” There are four bullets: “Improving educational opportunities, support and mentoring for prospective, new and experienced teachers.” I thought: “Well, maybe they’re going to be adding some added resources for them.” I don’t know exactly. They still have to work out some of the details.

Then it says: “Working with districts and teachers to ensure educators have effective technology to support student success.” Again, it says “working with,” which suggests the kind of relationship you’re going to have. This legislation doesn’t address any of that.

But it’s the third bullet that really captures my attention. It says: “Working with our education partners to support ongoing professional development for teachers based on the standards established by the B.C. Teachers Council and recognizing our shared interest in promoting a strong, professional identity with the teaching profession.”

Wow. If I wasn’t so sad, I’d be tempted to make a joke about how ridiculous this sounds, given that this is a fabulous strategy. It’s exactly, I think, what teachers would be looking for. I know it’s what parents should be looking for. I know it’s what students will benefit from. But this legislation completely misses the mark. It does nothing to support that strategy.

I have no idea how the minister can mesh those two. This is a very good strategy. I do think that teachers and our education partners want ongoing professional development that is based on some standards and that there’s a shared recognition and a shared interest in promoting a strong professional identity. The minister thinks and this government thinks that this is the way to get it? Oh my goodness. I don’t think this is going to get them…. I think it’s actually going to move them further from that.

It’s going to continue to poke these teachers in the eye. It’s going to continue to make them not want to come to work, and they work with our children, our most prized resources, our most prized possessions. Our children spend more time with teachers than they do with any other adult in their lives, and we are going to stand in this House and pass a piece of legislation that says they don’t know what’s best for them, that this government, this minister knows what’s best? I think that’s really problematic thinking.

The last bullet here is: “Improving access to information regarding best practices in teaching.” It’s going to be very interesting to see how that plays out.

When I think about what we’ve been hearing in this House on this side, and certainly, what I’ve read and the stories that I’ve been hearing, I have to say that all that keeps coming back to me is just how paternalistic this piece of legislation is. It’s an attitude that suggests that government knows best. It actually suggests, when I think about what would motivate government to bring forward this piece of legislation after all of these challenges…. We’ve had a decade of challenges with our schools.

The only thing I can think of, and certainly others have suggested, is that government is trying to shift away from the fact that schools are chronically underfunded. If we can talk about some of these other things and blame teachers some more for our challenges in our schools, maybe we’ll get distracted and forget about the other underlying issues.

Now, government does speak to outcomes, and they talk about student achievements. I spent a lot of time looking at outcomes and outcome data in my previous career. Whenever you’re looking at achievement, you have to use a whole range of outcomes.

Student achievement is one outcome, but I want to know a bit about teacher satisfaction. They are spending all of those hours with our students. I want to know if there’s longevity. I want to know if they feel supported. I mean, the minister talks about it in his service plan, that they are to feel supported. I am pretty confident at this point that our teachers are not feeling supported.

[1715]

We are certainly hearing concerns from many. There are concerns from the Delta school district chairperson, Laura Dixon. They wrote a letter to Minister Fassbender, and they said: “We have been democratically elected to ‘safeguard the resources’ of our district on behalf of our constituents. We must, therefore, speak against any legislation that would alter this mandate by placing an unelected special adviser who is not accountable to our community in front of our trustees’ ability to serve our community.”

This goes, again, to the point about elected school trustees. You know, they have a responsibility. They put their name forward back in the fall to take responsibility for making decisions, and this government is now saying: “We don’t actually trust your ability to make decisions.”

What worries me about this, too, is that school trustees exist because the government says that they have a responsibility. And so government allows them and permits the legislation that allows them to act on behalf of their community. There’s some recognition that each community has different needs when it comes to representing their schools, and that gives school boards the flexibility to make those decisions that are local decisions. This government is now trying to take some of that away.

Well, there’s another group who exist at the will of government, and that’s local governments. There’s a little bit of chatter. I’ve been going to some of the area association meetings, and this bill is starting to get them, sort of — just undertones of “do you think we’re next?” Are they going to start taking powers away from local governments as well?

So this is very unnerving — that people in British Columbia are starting to have conversations about how this bill is starting to raise concerns in other areas and in other jurisdictions.

The Prince George school district trustee Sharel Warrington calls the changes under Bill 11 quite signifi-
[ Page 7776 ]
cant and worrisome. “It’s very concerning, and its implications we really won’t know until we’ve had a real good chance to look at what it means for board governance, what it means for board autonomy and what it means in a lot of ways.”

So here we have a co-governance structure, and we have a terrible, terrible angst that is happening among these folks. I think that that needs to be addressed.

There’s one more that I’d like to read here, and this is from former school superintendent Geoff Johnson. He stated in his regular column in the Times Colonist that these amendments are not needed.

He said: “Whether any of these elements of the public school system urgently needed ‘amendment’ is a moot discussion. But conflict is an essential element of a good headline, though, and that, in turn, is the bread and butter of politics. In the meantime, B.C. quietly tolerates one in five of its children being raised in poverty.”

Our public school system is one of the best things we have in this province. It’s one of the best things we have, I think, as a nation. It is the great equalizer. It is the value that holds us together. It is the piece of an institution that makes success accessible to anybody.

I have a quote here from Mark Twain that I’d like to finish my remarks with. It’s a speech from November 23, 1900, and it holds true today. Mark Twain said: “Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It’s like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won’t fatten the dog.”

G. Holman: I’m pleased to rise to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents, given that I don’t see any members of government rising to defend the bill.

You know, one must ask the question — when any legislation is brought before this House, presumably — what’s the problem that we’re trying to solve here? This, honestly, seems to be a bill that seems to be a solution in search of a problem, but I fear that it’s actually worse than that. I fear that it’s more cynical than that.

[1720]

I want to quote the Nanaimo school board chair Steve Rae, who in a letter to the minister states: “I’m all for consolidating services if it makes sense, but to me, all they’re doing is trying to take everybody’s eye off the ball. The fact is the provincial government continues to underfund education, so everybody complains, and look what happens: they threaten to take away powers from school boards.”

I fear that this bill is in some sense looking for stakeholders to blame, when really the fundamental problem is government’s underfunding of the system. Just go down the list of the issues that the system is facing and then ask yourself: does this bill really address the concern?

It’s been mentioned a number of times by my colleagues, but of course a key issue is class size and composition, a matter that is before the courts once again, despite two court decisions rejecting the government’s stripping of class size and composition from teachers’ contracts.

The relationship with teachers itself is a huge issue. Several members from this side have mentioned the fact: this damaged relationship with teachers. Does this bill really address that by taking control of professional development?

The downloading of costs which aren’t fully funded by government — for example, B.C. Hydro, MSP costs — resulting in, over time, tens of millions of dollars downloaded onto school districts. Does this bill address that problem? It does not.

The need for seismic upgrades in many of our schools across British Columbia to ensure that our children are safe. Just recently, of course, the Premier reneged on a promise around the timing for seismic upgrading for schools in British Columbia. Again, a problem that this legislation does not address at all.

Cuts to adult basic education. This is an issue that has been addressed to me. Within my constituency the Gulf Islands district, school district 64, currently has 60 adult education learners distributed throughout the Gulf Islands. Because these constituents cannot really access courses on their home islands, they therefore must incur significant transportation costs to take high school upgrading courses.

When you introduce additional costs for the courses themselves, it’s going to make this option for citizens who are trying to improve their lives, improve the lives of their families, get higher-paying jobs so they can pay more taxes that support services that we all enjoy…. Eliminating funding for adult basic education is going to put this kind of important educational service out of reach for many islanders in my constituency.

I’m not just complaining about my islanders being poorly done by again. This is really an important issue for the entire province. If these folks can get a higher level of education and they can access further training, they’re going to earn higher incomes, they’re going to be able to support their families better, there are going to be lower costs ultimately, in the end, for government.

The elimination of funding for adult basic education is another case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. This legislation does nothing to address that problem.

Of course, the other thing that’s going on is that the public system is being slowly strangled, quite honestly. It is being underfunded. You’re seeing a bleeding of students from the public system to the private system, resulting in a large, a significant increase in funding for the private system, undermining that public education system, which as my colleague just stated, is the great equalizer in our society.

[1725]

It’s not only a huge social benefit that benefits all of us; it actually benefits our economy. It’s actually a key fac-
[ Page 7777 ]
tor in the growth of any economy — around productivity, for example.

All of these fundamental issues Bill 11 completely ignores and, if anything, makes the problem worse.

I just wanted to go through some aspects of the bill. I know it’s been done by other colleagues here. But when you actually get into this legislation, it’s very troubling — what’s being introduced here by government.

Of course, the key issue is that this bill gives the minister authority to compel school districts to take part in shared-services agreements, and it gives the minister the power to appoint an official administrator if boards fail to comply. A number of my colleagues on this side of the House have talked about the principle of co-governance and the lip service that’s paid by this government to that model of cooperation. This certainly flies in the face of that.

The amendments actually provide the minister with the authority to force different school boards to work together to find administrative savings through shared-services agreements. Some boards can be given authority over other boards through this arrangement. In other words, it can make some boards subservient to others at the discretion of the minister.

The minister can order a school board to participate in or undertake a project regarding the improvement of student performance or any other matter specified by the minister. This gives the minister very broad powers to issue directives to school boards and to appoint an administrator if school boards fail to comply with that ministerial directive.

The cuts that were announced in Budget 2015 — $29 million next school year, and a further $25 million in 2016-17. The shocking thing about those cuts that are being imposed again on school districts, despite the fact that they’re having to deal with a whole number of other downloaded costs, like MSP premiums and hydro rates, etc….

The savings from these administrative cuts, the so-called low-hanging fruit, won’t be retained in the system. They’ll go back into general revenue. It really boggles the mind. Why are we doing this? Why are we imposing administrative savings if not to reinvest back in the system? In fact, the savings go back into general revenues.

The whole rationale for administrative savings is based on bogus misinformation by the Premier and the minister about the percentage of operating costs that admin costs comprise. The suggestion was it’s somewhere around 7 percent. In fact, across the B.C. system it’s about half that and in a number of school districts even less than that. So the rationale for imposing these administrative savings is bogus. It’s unfounded.

In terms of the professional development issue again, the relationship with teachers that this government has, let’s say, developed over its term in office — as a result of stripping contractual agreements that are now before the courts — you know, that kind of collaboration, so-called…. Essentially, this bill allows a government to define what constitutes a professional development activity.

[1730]

It’s not at all clear that there’s any role for teachers or education faculties or school boards, for that matter. It’s not clear that they have any role now in defining what constitutes appropriate professional development activity. So much for repairing the damage to this relationship that government has shattered over the past decade.

There’s a real concern about access to student information. The language of the bill replaces section 170 in the School Act, entitled “Non-disclosure of student records.” It’s deleted. That language is deleted and will be replaced with a new section entitled “Student personal information.”

Whereas the current section 170 has strict controls over the ability of ministry employees to disclose student personal information, the amendments are completely permissive in nature — no longer explicitly prohibited. It’s not clear in the bill to whom personal information would be disclosed. For example, it begs the question: is government envisioning data linking between public bodies? Is it integrating student information systems into government records? Who is that going to be shared with?

Another specific section in the bill, 170(1), is removed. That clause makes it an offence to “disclose any information contained in a student record that identifies a student or a francophone student.” That language has been taken out. This raises huge concerns. It’s not at all clear that this government has consulted, has vetted this legislation, with the Privacy Commissioner.

These are some of the details in the bill. Others have pointed these matters out. Really, the bill has been poorly thought out. They have not consulted with any of the key stakeholders. As our Education spokesperson said the other day: who’s asking for this, exactly? Who is actually asking to have Bill 11 introduced and passed? What’s the need? What’s the problem that it’s trying to solve?

I did want to recount to the House an experience that I’ve had and school district 63 — which is the Saanich school district — has had with this government, with this minister, around the issue of shared services. It’s a bizarre story, quite frankly. I’m very pleased to be able to share it with the House. It has been remarked on publicly. There have been newspaper articles. There has been correspondence between the minister and the school district.

It has to do with a student information management system called openStudent that school district 63 was developing in order to provide a service that would be tailored to the specific needs of the users, the specific needs of school districts, at a much lower cost than the system that is currently being imposed on them.

We all know the story of BCeSIS and the complete failure of that student information system — again, a shared service, essentially imposed by government on school
[ Page 7778 ]
districts, losing, depending on who you talk to, from $100 million to $200 million. A complete failure, that system has been now disbanded, if that’s the right word. In response to this, school district 63 embarked on developing its own system. They were well on their way to doing this. You know, it saddens me to say this, but, in fact, it was not just stonewalled by this government, by this minister, but actively undermined.

[1735]

There is an irony here around this whole shared-service issue. Look at the Auditor General for Local Government, which just spent $5 million undertaking one audit, whereas many, including members on this side of the House, recommended that that function be incorporated into the Auditor General of British Columbia, thereby creating some economies of scale. That is a perfect example of a shared service as opposed to setting up an independent authority.

You know, again, there’s an irony here — the emphasis in this bill on imposing shared services on school districts. For one thing, their record is pretty poor about doing that. Second, if you look at some of the other actions government has taken, including the Auditor General for Local Government, it’s a complete contradiction.

I digress. I do want to continue on with this story about school district 63 because I really think it needs to be stated for the public record.

As I said, school district 63 embarked on this student information management system in response to the failure of the BCeSIS system imposed on them by the B.C. government just a couple of years ago. That BCeSIS system involved, of course, large, foreign-owned corporations, with contracts that are not particularly open to public scrutiny and where the majority of the employment and income benefits of the contracts flowed outside the province.

The system was also very unwieldy, aside from the fact that it didn’t work. There was a lot of information in it that really wasn’t required at all by school districts.

Given that experience, they embarked on developing a system — actually using some of the same consultants that worked on BCeSIS, who understood its problems and its flaws and the fact that it was too cumbersome and that there was way too much in that system — well beyond what school districts required. So school district 63 embarked on the development of their own system.

The school district actually originally applied to the RFP originally put out by government. They were denied. They weren’t even allowed to bid on the government contract for a provincewide student information system. They were told that they didn’t qualify because they were not a legal entity, which seems particularly bizarre to me. A school district, presumably, is a legal entity that can sign contracts. That just seems like a bizarre excuse to me.

Also, they were denied the opportunity to bid on the RFP because they weren’t a corporation with a minimum of either $100 million in annual revenues or $10 million in annual net income — which is all very interesting, except it has nothing to do with the capability of developing a student information system.

It did beg the question of why this government, given its experience with this IT system that was a complete failure, wouldn’t even consider a bid from a school district, a made-in-B.C. system, that would be tailored to the needs of school districts. Government would not even allow them to bid on the contract.

It also, of course, had the additional benefit of keeping all of the jobs, the employment benefits from developing the system and applying the system, in British Columbia. Once again, government decided to go with a large, out-of-province provider, where all those benefits leak out of our economy.

School district 63 was denied the opportunity to bid on the RFP. They went ahead anyway, and they began to engage other school districts on whether or not they would be interested in using a system developed by them.

[1740]

According to school district 63, there were over 40 school districts who expressed serious interest in the system. The reason they did express interest was not just because it would have been a leaner system tailored to the precise needs of school districts but because it would have been much less expensive. In the system now imposed by the B.C. government, the school districts are having to pay those costs, which are in the order of something like $20 per student.

School district 63 was very confident. Again, the consultants working on the project had worked on the BCeSIS system. They were very qualified. They were very confident they could have delivered their system, if applied provincewide, for a fraction of that cost. The other major attractor to this student information system is that the cost to school districts would have been much lower than what they are now facing with, again, this large, multinational, out-of-province provider.

After two years of developing this system, the district indicated that openStudent — that’s the name of the system — was proceeding on time and on budget. Early tests of their system indicated that it had the potential to provide a student information system at a fraction of the cost of the commercial system, collecting only data required by B.C.’s educators and education system.

The project manager, Tim Agnew, stated in an interview with Focus magazine that openStudent was “to be run as a non-profit, to be governed by the education community. It doesn’t get better than that, to have a system that’s developed for your community and by your community.”

What did the ministry do in response to this? They informed school district 63, out of the blue…. Discussions had been going on with the ministry. The minister indicated to myself in estimates, as well as to the school
[ Page 7779 ]
district, that he had no objections. He would prefer, of course, that school districts go with the government system, but he would have no objections to the school district developing their own system. As far as school district 63 was concerned, they had if not a green light, certainly greenish, and no serious obstacles.

Then they were informed, and taken completely by surprise, that school district 63 would have to integrate their system with the new B.C. Services Card, costing them millions of dollars — completely taken by surprise by this. They’d been discussing this issue with the ministry, even with the minister.

Since that statement that this system would have to be consistent with the new B.C. Services Card, costing millions, school district 63 have never been given either general reasons or technical specifications clarifying how their system must integrate with the B.C. Services Card system. They were told it was going to cost millions of dollars, but they were given no indication about the specifics, about why it would cost that much, and could get no cooperation, no collaboration whatsoever, from the minister or from the ministry — the same minister now that’s talking about the need for shared services in our school system.

It actually gets worse than that, as if that’s not bad enough. When they were told it was going to cost them millions of dollars, that pretty much sounded the death knell for the school district 63 SIMS system. They simply didn’t have those dollars in their budget to proceed.

What they found out, subsequent to dropping the project, although they’re now still trying to sell it to perhaps out-of-jurisdiction buyers…. They’re still hoping that they can get some return on that investment.

[1745]

What they found out after they decided to stop further development of the project was that the current provider, this large multinational corporation, was given a five-year exemption from that requirement to integrate with the B.C. Services Card system. The government’s preferred proponent was given an exemption.

They, of course, were not given that opportunity at all. They were told: “You’re going to have to pay several million dollars to integrate your system.”

It’s even worse than that. What the school district discovered was that the ministry was contacting other school districts and actively discouraging them from considering school district 63’s system.

It goes beyond lack of cooperation. It goes beyond inconsistency in terms of: “Here are the criteria that you have to meet.” It goes to actively undermining a school district that was developing a very low-cost, tailored system in British Columbia that actually could have worked. I find this astonishing. This is the same government that’s now bringing this bill before us to impose shared systems on school districts.

As has been pointed out by many speakers on this side of the House, school districts are doing these things now. They’re no fools. They’re looking for opportunities. They’ve taken all of the low-hanging fruit, and they’re quite willing and able to collaborate with other school districts. Here’s an example where a school district tried to do just that and was actively undermined by the minister — despite public statements, by the way, to the contrary.

I think others want to speak here to the issue. I’ll leave my comments at that.

This government needs to pull this bill. They need to withdraw this bill and do what they should have done before they introduced it in the first place. They should talk to teachers, they should talk to school districts, and they should talk to parents. Spend the summer doing that. Bring a bill back in October that actually addresses the needs of our education system in British Columbia rather than introduce this legislation, which is simply about finding a scapegoat for the failure of this government around education for the past decade.

K. Conroy: As I rise to take my place to respond to Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, I have a sense of here we go again. Once again, this government is seen to be attacking our public education system.

Since being elected in 2005, we have had a number of bills brought into the House that continually go after our public education system. Usually, it’s just the teachers. This time the government has been all inclusive — usually a good term but certainly not in this context.

I, too, as other MLAs have spoken about in the House, have communicated with my three school districts I represent: school district 20, Kootenay-Columbia; No. 10, Arrow Lakes. And I share No. 8, Kootenay Lake, with my colleague from Nelson-Creston. All have expressed concerns about Bill 11 and the regulations being imposed on the districts. In school district 20, in fact, we see all groups working together. The trustees, the district parent advisory council, the teachers, the CUPE colleagues — all working together.

In fact, I want to quote from Andy Davidoff, the president of the Kootenay Columbia Teachers Union, who said in an e-mail:

“It is clear from the overwhelming support we received from these key education stakeholder groups that it is appropriate for all of us who are passionate about ensuring that our world-class public education system is not eroded any further to send this message to our government in response to its introduction of Bill 11. Let’s all tell the minister and the Premier that they have gone too far. They need to stop before they destroy our world-class public education system.”

[1750]

They’ve gotten together, and they are running ads on the local radio station saying just that. They’ve put this into an ad that I want to read into the record, because I think it’s really incredible that these groups are working together.
[ Page 7780 ]

The ad goes:

“According to our Minister of Education, British Columbia has one of the best education systems in the world. But then he continues to allege that our system is not good enough. Teachers are not of sufficient quality. Their professional development is deficient. Trustees are mismanaging school district finances and need to be held more accountable. Student data needs to be more available for mining.

“He also expects boards of education to cut $54 million from their operating budgets when our education system is already receiving $1,000 per student less than the Canadian average. He has even tabled legislation that he will send someone into the districts to make the cuts if they can’t find a way to do so.

“Let’s all let the minister and the Premier know they have gone too far. They need to stop before they destroy our world-class public education system. A message from parents, support staff, teachers, trustees and all supporters of public education in B.C.”

I think that’s a pretty strong message coming from so many people in our region, a message where folks are saying enough is enough. It’s interesting that in all the past situations — the issues, the bills that have been raised in this Legislature — there has always been a bit of dissension between one group or another. But this time I see a unified front. I see people that are incredibly disillusioned with this bill and really concerned by the legislation.

I’ve been asking: who supports this bill? Who’s out there saying: “All right. This is great. This has to go forward. This legislation is just what our education system needs”? Where did this concept come from? I don’t see the support out there. I don’t see anyone saying: “We need this.” I don’t see any stakeholder groups saying to the minister: “Yes. This is a great idea, and it needs to be implemented right away.”

It really begs the question: who exactly does support this? I think that a number of the members — well, a few of the members — on the other side of the House have said they support it. I’m wondering if they talked to their own school trustees, because we’re getting the message back that they don’t support it. So we’re wondering who exactly supports it.

It’s very, very clear that the B.C. School Trustees Association…. Their letter that was sent to the minister clearly shows whether they support it or not. It’s obvious that they don’t support it. It’s interesting. The letter was sent after their annual general meeting. I know that my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake was very happy to attend this annual general meeting and listen to the concerns of the trustees from across the province.

It’s expensive for trustees to get down to Vancouver, to get to meetings and meet with people, meet with each other. It was great for them to have the ear of the spokesperson for the official opposition on Education. But they didn’t have the ear of the minister. It was unfortunate that the minister couldn’t make the AGM. He couldn’t make this really important meeting of trustees from all across the province who’d taken the time to make sure that they were at this meeting. It’s unfortunate that the minister didn’t have the time to make it.

What the trustees had to do was write a letter. They sent the letter to the minister detailing their concerns about Bill 11, and they put it into three motions, in direct response to Bill 11. I want to read the three motions into the record. I think it’s really important to make sure that we get it on the record, to make sure that people recognize what the trustees did at their annual general meeting.

They passed three motions:

“(1) That the BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special advisory provision and where shared service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.

“(2) That BCSTA publicly advocate strongly against the erosion of local board of education autonomy in Bill 11.

“(3) That BCSTA demand 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 process or resulting regulations.”

[1755]

To reiterate, there are concerns from trustees across the province that this bill was written to challenge their authority, to challenge the autonomy of locally elected boards of education with no consultation. I go on to read from the letter, where they say: “Contrary to the intent and spirit of the recently signed co-governance memorandum of understanding, the Ministry of Education did not engage boards in a broad-based consultation process prior to tabling this legislation.”

No consultation with the boards of education, the very people that they had committed to consulting with when they signed a co-governance memorandum of understanding. What does that say about documents signed in cooperation with the government, if they don’t even follow through on it mere months later after they signed it?

I get to know the trustees in my area. These are really hard-working, committed people who get involved, not just because they want to be elected to something; they get involved because they have a passion for education. They have a passion for ensuring the kids, the children in our area, get the best education they can provide.

They struggle to do it. I talk to them. They go to meetings. They meet with parents. They meet with teachers. They meet with the support staff. They are all involved in a collaborative process to ensure that they’re all working together to make sure the kids in our districts get the best education. It’s so frustrating for them to be faced with this kind of legislation that’s just what one district said: a slap in the face.

I want to talk a bit about the struggles that the three districts have had. But first, I actually want to comment on the minister’s letter in response to the BCSTA letter. Now, usually when you write a letter to a ministry, there’s a considerable time lag before you get a response. It’s usually weeks, and it’s sometimes months. Maybe that’s just
[ Page 7781 ]
letters coming from members of the opposition’s offices. But it can take a while. I’ve had up to four months. Just recently I was told it was six months, but they’d lost the original letter.

To see the minister responding in two days to a fairly significant letter written from the B.C. School Trustees Association…. They get a letter two days later. It begs the question: did he really even consider the school trustees’ proposals? Did he really consider their concerns? How genuine of a response was it?

Obviously, I feel this was a prepared letter in anticipation of the letter that was coming, a rather patronizing attitude, insinuating that there was consulting done, when we know full well there was no consulting done, and insinuating that they were all partners in education, partners in this process, when we know full well there was no partnership in this bill, in this tabling of Bill 11.

If they were truly considered partners in the public education system, why would they demand the withdrawal of sections of a bill they were supposed to have collaborated on, supposed to have been consulted on, or an immediate review of the intent of the bill? It just doesn’t wash.

Why would the government think it’s okay to take away the autonomy of locally elected boards, boards of local folks who ran to represent the interests of their communities? Why would they think that they can sit in Victoria and tell someone in Nakusp or Trail or Castlegar: “We know better”? How patronizing of an attitude is that?

I’m sure some of the new trustees are probably thinking, “What have I gotten myself into? What kind of a dictatorial government is bringing in legislation that will once again cause more grief in our education system” — especially when many of them watched the minister and the Premier make a commitment to a new beginning and commitment after the longest job action in B.C. history?

Then they get Bill 11. That’s an incredible commitment from this government. Many of them sat and saw the signing of the co-governance memorandum of understanding as a sign of good faith. Well, the bill not only takes away autonomy in a number of areas; it centralizes government control over education.

[1800]

I want to refer to a discussion I had with school district 10, the Arrow Lakes district. It’s one of the smaller districts in the province as far as number of students go, but it’s spread out geographically. It starts in the communities of Silverton and New Denver, and it goes up to Nakusp and then down the Arrow Lakes to Fauquier and across the ferry to Edgewood.

It’s a district that’s worked really hard to make ends meet, while providing excellent, innovative education to the kids they serve. And they were the ones who said to me that Bill 11 was just a slap in the face — as in, they feel that, in the existing School Act, the very act that this minister now feels he needs to make changes to, the minister already has the ability to step in and appoint an administrator.

They’ve done it before. The Minister of Education has done it before, and the school districts that have had an administrator come in know full well what that feels like. Why would we need legislation now, when it’s already there? They didn’t understand that. They said: “It doesn’t make sense.” I said: “It didn’t make sense to me either.” They talked about the fact that there was no consultation, that it was just…. Everybody found out about it at the same time.

We talked about the cuts that they have made over the last number of years, the things they’ve done to make ends meet and ensure resources stay in the classroom. I want to share the list of what they have done over the years to make sure that they can continue to provide excellent education to the kids in the Arrow Lakes.

They’ve taken the position of the superintendent and the secretary-treasurer and merged it into one position, and then they also have this woman functioning as the director of learning. Now, she’s an incredible woman, and she can do this. But imagine. They took three positions and amalgamated them into one.

They got efficiencies. They realized efficiencies through a shared financial services contract with school district 20, and then they realized, after a number of years of this agreement, that they would actually realize more efficiencies by returning the financial services back to their own district. They did that, and they put their money into the local credit union and saved enough money to be able to hire an additional support person for kids with special needs by actually putting their money back into their own local credit union.

Then they’ve realized efficiencies through WCB claims management shared services with school district 23 out of Vernon. They’ve also got a shared services contract with human resources and labour relations support with the Okanagan Labour Relations Council, a non-profit society.

They’ve already entered into shared services agreements. They know when they work, that they can remove the ability if they’re not working or keep maintaining them if they are working.

They’ve closed two schools. They’ve closed the district resource centre. They’ve made staff cuts and reductions across the district. They’ve made cuts with teachers, their CUPE support staff, administration. They’ve had transportation efficiencies realized through bussing operations, reviews and restructuring.

They’ve got larger classes at intermediate levels. They have a reduction in the number of elective classes offered at secondary schools to compensate for smaller class sizes and limited specialized teachers. Another issue in smaller districts like this is ensuring that they have the teachers and the people they need, the specialists they need.

They have multigrade high school academic classes.
[ Page 7782 ]
They’ve combined physics 11 and 12, chemistry 11 and 12, and social studies 11 and math 12 are offered every second year rather than every year, so they can increase the cohort of class sizes. The multigrade classes have increased throughout the district.

Consistently, their facilities grants don’t match the cost of maintaining buildings and upgrades, and replacements are continually delayed because they just can’t afford it. They’ve also had to delay the replacement of equipment in the school shops, sports equipment, the foods classes. They said that some of their equipment is 20, 30 years old that the kids are working on.

They’ve had a zero wage increase for their administrative staff. For six years, they’ve had a wage freeze on their administrative staff. These people are working long, long hours and not getting compensated for it, but they do it because they care about the kids. They care about the communities they live in. These are small communities. They know everybody.

They’ve actually reduced the number of school trustees. I don’t know how many school districts have done that, but they’ve gone from seven school trustees to five.

They’ve restructured all of their schools to get greater efficiencies. One of their schools has a four-day week schedule.

[1805]

They’ve reduced clerical times. They’ve reduced support staff. A number of their support staff have gone from 12-month appointments to ten months, and they anticipate that they’re going to have to make further cuts in the coming year.

Their attempts to maintain staffing will necessitate utilizing surplus to cover basic operating cost increases. These are operating increases like inflation, utilities, teacher salaries, the CUPE wage increases and benefits, which the government said they would cover, and they’re not covering it. So now this district has to use a little bit of a surplus that they have managed to accumulate because they’re good, efficient managers.

They’ve accumulated the surplus so that they can replace buildings. But now they can’t do that, because they have to use accumulated surplus, because they’ve been good managers, for basic operating. To provide education to the kids in the district, they have to use their surpluses. They said to me that they won’t last long. “If we have to keep doing this” — of the cuts that are coming — “we might have a surplus for another two or three years, five at the most, but it’s not enough. We will not have enough money.”

They’ve reduced bus routes, support staff hours. They’ve reduced education assistants. These are people, assistants, that are working with kids with special needs. They’ve had to reduce positions. Every principal in this district has two schools to manage — not one, but two. They’ve eliminated lead-hand positions, and they are looking at further reductions to consultants for special education.

Is that what Bill 11 is all about: reducing services to kids with special needs? There’s something desperately wrong with that.

There have been impacts. They talked about the impacts to their district — the measures that they’ve already made and the measures that they think they’re going to have to make. They talked about the parents who have come in and have been strong advocates for services for their students, particularly special education students.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

There are kids, strong academic students, that need different kinds of teaching and people to work with them. They haven’t been able to provide that. They’ve had real difficulty hiring specialized services — occupational therapy, speech therapy. They can’t offer full-time positions, so it’s really difficult to ensure that they can get people to come in. You don’t find too many people in those kinds of roles that have both occupational and speech therapy as their education, so it makes it really difficult.

There’s a significant decline in the buildings and the equipment in the district, and there’s an increase in students taking on-line classes, which is really not the preferred way of learning. It’s not the optimum way of learning. I remember when my daughter had to do an on-line class and the struggle that my husband and I went through supporting her to do that. It’s not the best way of learning. It’s better to be in a classroom working with other kids where you’re learning and all part of the ambience of being in a classroom.

One of the sad statistics they talked about is that there is an increase in staff sick time in every employee group in this school district, and they feel that it could continue.

Madame Speaker: Speaking to Bill 11.

K. Conroy: Yes, thank you, Madame Speaker.

Speaking to Bill 11, they’re worried that what Bill 11 imposes on them is that these things will continue. The cuts will continue. Because of the impending cuts — what they see as cuts in Bill 11…. They see it as taking away the autonomy of being able to provide services in their school district. When you talk about cutting special needs kids, it’s just not right. Why would you bring in a bill that’s going to end up cutting services to kids that desperately need it?

This district has worked really hard to make ends meet. They have provided really excellent, innovative education. They’ve done shared services. They’ve already proven that that can work. Does it need to be dictated to them? No, because they’ve done it, because they understand their district. They understand what the needs are in the area.

They talked to me about Bill 11, again, as a slap in the face — that it undermines their autonomy. As they said,
[ Page 7783 ]
in the existing School Act…. What the minister is bringing in is already there. They just don’t understand why that would happen. They just don’t understand it.

[1810]

They thought outside the box, they worked really hard to balance their budgets, and they feel like instead of being rewarded for their hard work, they’re being punished. They brought in all these cost savings and struggled to continue to provide a quality education, and they do, but at what cost? They said to me: “It’s so frustrating. Who in their right mind would think this is a good idea?”

Locally elected trustees know what they need to do to make ends meet to ensure they are providing the education the kids in their districts need. To be told now that the minister thinks he has a better idea, it’s like shades of Big Brother watching over you, and: “You better smarten up.”

We’re talking about school districts that consult with the teachers. They consult with their administrative staff, with their support staff. They consult with parents. Bill 11 takes away the autonomy of ensuring that this can happen. That’s what they’re feeling. They’re feeling: “Why would we need to bring in this bill?”

I know another district in my constituency, district 20 — they also feel they have been doing everything they can to make ends meet while providing good-quality education to the kids in the area. In spite of everything, they think they’re going to have a deficit. They’re saying: “Are we going to be looking at an administrator coming in and telling us what we have to do?” They’ve already, as the minister has suggested, gotten the low-hanging fruit. In fact, they’ve been doing it for a number of years, and there isn’t any more. They’re a very frugal school district.

They’ve closed schools. They’ve made the cuts to the administration. They recognize they have lower enrolments. They’ve never had to cut from direct services. They’re worried that now this is something that might have to happen. They actually might have to cut from direct services to students.

They said that there’s a limit. They’re worried about…. They’re looking at: what more can parents pay? They’re looking at making sure that parents will have to pay more to ensure that they’re going to make ends meet.

They had a list of things, too, that they talked to me about that they are worried about with Bill 11. They’re worried about having to eliminate district coordinators or district learning coordinators, about cutting elementary counsellors. Both districts have worried and talked about cutting counsellors — counsellors that districts need in order to make sure that things are going well with kids so that they can learn. I mean, you can’t learn if you need counselling and you can’t get it.

They’re talking about cutting custodial services. They said: “That’s where we always go. We always go to cut custodial services.” And then they say: “Kids are getting sick because we are not cleaning it up enough, because we’re not cleaning the schools.” They’re talking about custodial services on buses.

They’re talking about charging parents for busing. That’s never happened in our district. They’re talking about charging…. I talked to one mom with three kids. She said: “My gosh, what am I going to do? I just barely manage to make ends meet, and now I’ve got to pay for busing, potentially?” She’s really concerned.

They’re going to be looking at cutting other things in the district, and they’re saying: “Why? We know what we need to do. We know. Do we need Big Brother looking over us, telling us what needs to happen?”

I think it was interesting. At school district No. 8 not only did the board of trustees send a letter to the minister, but the DPAC did too — the district parent advisory council. They also sent a letter expressing their concerns. From the parents’ perspective — it’s interesting — they felt that this bill would actually stifle the voices of parents, that it inhibited the participation of parents and teachers in the delivery of public education and gave the power to those farthest away from the students in district 8, the Kootenay Lake district.

It’s interesting how impacted parents are by Bill 11. We’re hearing it again and again, how they’re feeling, and about the…. They raised the issues that the member for Saanich North and the Islands raised about the concerns of privacy, sensitive information about their children. They’re very concerned about that and what’s coming out in Bill 11. They’re saying that this is an issue that needs to be discussed. Parents weren’t consulted on it. Advisory councils weren’t consulted on it, just like the boards of education weren’t consulted on it. They’re very, very concerned about it.

[1815]

The district itself, the trustees themselves, see it as yet another erosion of local governance and autonomy and a further undermining of the foundation of public education in this province. They are also dismayed at the fact that there was no consultation — no consultation with the trustees in this province, who are the very people that are elected to ensure that they are providing the services. They are providing the education to the children in their communities that they feel should be the type of education they should be providing to it.

We have some really unique programs, as I’m sure every district has unique programs. They’re saying: “Are we going to lose the autonomy to ensure that we provide these unique programs?” The outdoor education programs or teachers that take kids on hikes and camping and on canoe trips out on the lake — these really innovative programs that give kids an understanding of things other than classroom learning — are we going to lose that ability?

School district No. 8, they felt, too, that the local boards of education are the front-line providers of education. They have the knowledge and expertise for the prov-
[ Page 7784 ]
incial government to draw on, and they’re saying: “Please, utilize that knowledge. Utilize that education. Utilize our experiences that we have in our communities to make sure that if you’re going to bring in legislation, it’s being brought in and will make the best changes to education in this province.”

They are very concerned about the erosion of local board autonomy. It seems that after years of labour tensions and chronic underfunding of public education, they felt that there was a new beginning. They felt that the minister and the Premier had both said: “We are going to move forward. We are going to ensure that consultation is going to happen between all the players in education.” They feel that that didn’t happen.

Bill 11 has ensured that that has not happened. The only way it can happen now is for the minister to listen to the School Trustees Association, to the many other people that are sending letters of concern. I know the minister must be getting them, because we’re getting them, and we won’t be getting near as many as he’s getting and as other MLAs on both sides of the House are getting.

They’re concerns from parents, from teachers and from the school districts about what this legislation brings in. I thought it was interesting that the legislation brings in legislation around professional development. I know they didn’t consult.

The government didn’t consult on Bill 11 over professional development with the B.C. School Trustees Association, and they didn’t consult with the school trustees.

V. Huntington: Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, is yet another example of the government’s desire to change the structure of the education system in this province.

Because the government wants to absolutely control those changes, mould them to its own plan for the future administration of education in B.C., it has introduced a piece of legislation that fails to involve administrators, teachers or boards in the development of what well could become a new governance regime.

The bill entailed minimal, if any, discussion with other parties — brief encounters that didn’t hint at the actual intention, that didn’t give the parties a chance to reform the practices which trouble the ministry.

No negotiations about expectations, no consultations, no respect for duly elected bodies that find themselves in an intolerable position, that have a mandate from the local community but feel they are being squeezed out of their responsibilities by a ministry that thinks it knows best.

My concern isn’t so much that the minister is exercising his broad authority and responsibility for K-to-12 education in this province. It is how the minister is exercising his authority that troubles me.

It is provocative in a sensitive time, it is unnecessarily arbitrary and it avoids a fundamental principle of modern democracy: consultation. How can a minister toss to the winds a co-governance relationship memorandum of understanding that was signed only four months before tabling of this bill?

[1820]

What is even more disturbing is that given the length of time it takes to consider legislation, to draft a piece of legislation, to have the bill wind its way through Justice and cabinet, and to get the bill on the legislative agenda, the minister simply had to have known that he was signing a meaningless document.

It is my school board, the Delta School Board, that has written the minister to complain about the introduction of Bill 11. It is Delta’s trustees that have advised the minister that the bill should be withdrawn in the face of the co-governance MOU.

To quote the chairperson at the Delta board of education, Laura Dixon:

“The Delta Board of Education envisions that by withdrawing these provisions of Bill 11, an opportunity would be created for trustees to work with the Ministry of Education in the spirit envisioned by the MOU. We could consult” — what a concept — “and co-construct new legislation that would enable us to work together as partners, respecting the mandates given by our constituents.”

The co-governance MOU is very clear. The minister committed to timely notification, consultation and collaboration to the fullest extent possible. Even in the face of extraordinary circumstances that might limit the timeliness of consultation and notification, the minister committed to providing the rationale for any lack of consultation.

But this time the baby went out with the bath water, and a democratically elected board of education is faced with broader opportunities to be assigned an elected special adviser by the minister — an individual who is not accountable to the community and who, to make matters even worse, can hire their own employees, who must then be paid by the local board.

It is the lack of discussion around these powers that is so disturbing, because the refusal to negotiate leaves gaping holes in understanding and trust. How bad must a situation be for the minister to thrust aside democratically elected officials? If the context of appointing a special adviser is the utter failure of a school board to do its job properly, then that limitation should be fully understood and agreed to by the parties.

This bill allows the minister to appoint a special adviser for any reason, to take over the school board for any educational, financial or community matter or if the minister is suspicious that information has not been forthcoming. There are no limitations to the authority in this act, no understanding of what the minister might be interested in, no negotiation regarding the expectation that have occasioned these powers. We don’t even know if regulations will limit the powers.
[ Page 7785 ]

Some members have asked whether this will enable the minister to force a school district to sell land. Will it? We don’t know. And I ask what that community matter might possibly be that would occasion a minister to move aside an elected board.

Why open this door of suspicion and distrust and concern, when discussion could at least have prepared people? Why not talk first and avoid provoking good, hard-working citizens who have put their name in front of their peers and offered to direct the local schools on their behalf — individuals with a democratic mandate who thought they had a clear understanding with the minister? Why open that door?

I understand that the minister must have the ability to administer a school district in the face of failure. It is a duty the minister must occasionally exercise. There will be times when a board needs assistance or the administrators of a district need assistance. There would be times when the minister must act in the public good. But context could have been part of the consultation and understanding could have cleared the way to a piece of legislation that would be acceptable to everyone.

Delta’s board of education also objects to the minister’s broadened authority to issue administrative directives, to designate service providers and to require boards to enter into shared service operation provisions. Again, each of the powers could have been given a context.

When would the minister use them? Will there be discussion first? What types of shared services will the minister require boards to use? Will there be talk first or will he repeat the stupid mistakes of the eSIS system —, a system everyone said wouldn’t work, a system that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and was doomed to failure.

Some efficiencies look good on paper but don’t necessarily work in the field. Will the minister and his staff talk out the shared service and how it would apply? Would they ask for input on how or whether it will create efficiencies, or will it be an arbitrary experiment like so many other things this government undertakes? Consultation and compromise — they work if given an honest chance.

[1825]

How does the minister intend to come up with the designated service provider? Will there be a tendering system? Will there be a growth in bureaucracy, another huge organization that develops a policy book and regulations and efficiencies and which will drive out the independent, smaller businessman in British Columbia? Efficiencies of scale might impress the minister, but they can cause real hardship in the local economy. Just look at what health procurement means to the small businessman.

Will the minister assign a special adviser to monitor his new shared-services plan? Again, what is the context of the authority? Many boards already share services. Is this provision meant only to encourage boards who are hesitant or who see no benefit within their own context? Discussion would have gone a long way to help people understand what the minister wants of them.

I also want to discuss briefly the controversial decision to regulate continuing professional development. I am surprised to learn that professional development in the education field is not, to some extent, regulated on a provincial level. Certainly, there will be different needs in different areas, but the requirement to standardize upgrades in a logical and subject-specific manner, in a way that recognizes new science and new social advances and with enough study to make the upgrades meaningful is surely sensible and in the best interest of both the student and the teacher.

I can sympathize with the desire to standardize the expectations for professional development. But once again, it is done arbitrarily, without negotiation, without consultation, without determining if there is a way to satisfy the minister’s desire for a standard against which to measure professional development without insulting the traditional, local approach to ensure teachers are kept up to date. Consultation and discussion — so woefully missing in so much of what government does.

Respecting the public and believing in democratic processes are not signs of weakness. They are signs of great strength and great wisdom. I believe this province has demonstrated neither strength nor wisdom and certainly not respect for the public when they tabled the Education Statutes Amendment Act.

V. Huntington moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.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); M. Bernier in the chair.
[ Page 7786 ]

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

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

K. Conroy: I wanted to ask the minister a question about the Lower Columbia Initiatives Corp. We refer to it as the LCIC. It’s an economic development organization that serves communities in the lower Columbia, the southern Columbia, Trail, Rossland, Warfield, Fruitvale and Montrose in the areas A and B of the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary.

They’ve found that the majority of the provincial nominee program nominees that this organization has been in negotiations with regarding employment opportunities in the lower Columbia region of Kootenay West have actually been delayed in their immigration process.

The LCIC was telling me that they deal with applicants for the entire lower Columbia region, and they’ve found a disconnect between the nominee’s active participation and the ministry’s application process.

The disconnect has resulted in a delayed gap of an average of six months to a year of wait time for approval of the process. It has left participants in a situation where they can’t wait on the ministry’s completion of the paperwork for potential opportunities for their livelihoods. It’s left their family’s lives hanging in a balance, including their own.

The LCIC has recognized that this is a significant gap between the matching of a participant with an employment opportunity and the ministry’s completion of the paperwork to finalize the procedure. They have talked about it. They think the PNP program is great in theory, but in practice it actually delays the process to bring people into our community who are wanting to invest and work and be part of the economic development initiatives that are really essential to the rural regions of British Columbia.

I just was wondering if the minister can please explain what the reason is for the ministry’s delay in completing the necessary paperwork for the nominees in the PNP program.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we would agree that the PNP program is critical for companies and for individuals. It really is our one mechanism that we control in terms of a pathway to permanency. We want to ensure that people who want to be in British Columbia get the opportunity to be considered. We have taken a 90-day pause, in fact, on that PNP program. There are no applications being taken at the moment.

[1340]

Part of the circumstance we face, along with other jurisdictions across the country, is that when the federal government made, in some cases, badly needed changes to the temporary foreign worker program, we had a significant shift in the application process. Literally hundreds of people moved from one program to the PNP program.

We have the ability to influence and to make 5,500 nominees a year. If you can imagine, as the list grows longer, people have to wait longer to be processed in British Columbia. Our neighbour Alberta is in a much worse position than we are in terms of the number of people applying through the PNP program.

We announced a couple of weeks ago that we are taking a 90-day pause. The program will start again. We’ll take new applications on July 2, but we’re looking at how we streamline. We brought 18 more people on staff to actually work through the list that we currently have. If the organization the member references has people who are already in the queue, they will continue to be processed in terms of the paperwork. But I’m not happy with long waits for people who are on a list either. They need to be treated fairly and expeditiously.

Also, I inherited a paper-based system, which in this day and age is inexplicable to me. We’re going to move some of that process on line to make sure that it’s being done more quickly.

I can certainly understand if there have been frustrations. If there’s a disconnect between the ministry and the organization, I am very happy to have Rob Mingay give them a call. We’ll just get the contact information, and I’m sure Rob would be able to connect.

The program is currently on pause as we deal with the 8,300 people that are currently on the list in PNP. We have the ability to nominate 5,500 in an entire calendar year, so there are going to be waits. My job is to make sure that we’re modernizing and streamlining this process.

K. Conroy: Is there any prioritizing of looking at different regions to ensure that all of the PNP applications don’t get processed in the Lower Mainland, for instance, or up in the North Peace, that there’s actually some regional equity in the process?

Hon. S. Bond: I actually think that’s a very good point. What we’re doing over the next, probably, month or so is looking at what criteria we could apply. We are going to look at skill set, for one thing. We’re going to look at what B.C. needs and how people that are in the queue line up against our labour market demands. But I really want to be careful in noting that anyone who’s on the list today will be treated under the circumstances under which they were put on that list. It is first come, first served as we speak.

There is no regional approach at this moment. There’s no labour market demand approach. You get on the list, and you wait your turn. It’s basically first come, first served. The first 1,500 could be from Victoria, for all I know. I don’t get engaged in the decisions directly. Those are exactly the questions we’re asking. Where do we need them? What labour skills do they require? At the moment it’s simply
[ Page 7787 ]
first come, first served, and the line is too long for the number of nominees that we already have each year.

K. Conroy: Persons that are in this process right now and are not part of that 5,500, do they reapply, then? Is that how the process works? Will they be allowed to come in under the new criteria that the ministry is developing?

Hon. S. Bond: The potential nominees that are on the list remain on the list. They don’t have to reapply. They will work through the normal course of events. My concern is that if you’re No. 7,954, you’re going to wait a fair bit of time. The reality of that is that we have 5,500 nominees. That’s all we have, in terms of the allocation from the federal government. I have made an argument regularly and frequently to the federal government to increase that number. It did just go up, but not nearly enough, from our perspective.

Two things. We need to continue to lobby the federal government — and other jurisdictions are in a similar situation — to increase the number of nominations. But people on the list today will remain on that list. We will work our way through them — first come, first served.

[1345]

There is an attrition rate. There are those who are not approved. Obviously, they go through a process of due diligence. But for some people who are on the very end of that list, the wait will potentially be up until next year. We can only nominate 5,500.

K. Conroy: The minister is then saying that this 90-day pause is not going to expedite this process. It’s still going to be taking too long for people to get approved, even though there are going to be some new guidelines brought in.

Hon. S. Bond: Part of the process is to expedite the processing of people currently on the list. Yes, we hope that will happen. We hired 18 more people to actually move those forward.

The bottom-line answer is we have 8,300 applications for 5,500 spots, and as you can imagine, we’re partway through a year. We get 5,500 nominees per year. Even if we hurry up, there will still be people who will have to wait until next year because we do not have any other nominees.

The problem…. In December alone we had 1,200 people apply for PNP. I finally said: “We can’t keep taking names. This is not fair to the people who are on the bottom end of that list. We need to look at what the framework is and how quickly we can actually do this appropriately.” So I said: “We’re going to take a 90-day pause.”

There are, however, three other programs where we are continuing to take applications and process. That is: through express entry, which is a new program the federal government brought into place in January; Health Match; and we have a northeast pilot project which is also continuing to operate. Those are things that certainly our staff could discuss with the organization that the member opposite mentioned. We’d be happy to have them make that call.

S. Simpson: I’m going to go back a little bit to some of our value-added discussion. We were talking a little bit about the forest sector, and the minister was talking about value-added in all sectors. Could the minister explain how this process works?

I’ll use an example. We know it’s a debate not about whether there are raw log exports or not but about volumes of raw log exports — not about the issue. The question is the level and the volumes and what would be, probably, record levels of exports — and the debate about whether there are value-added opportunities.

We know, for example, there are mills that have said: “We could run additional shifts if we had guaranteed fibre supply.” I just use that as an example.

The question I have for the minister, as the minister has responsibility for the job creation piece, looking at how resources might best be exploited for jobs is: how does this process work, then, in order to be able to have a discussion, for example, with the Minister of Forests around whether those volumes are too high and whether there’s an alternative that, in fact, is a job creator in British Columbia? How does that discussion work?

[1350]

Hon. S. Bond: We did begin this conversation prior to lunch. As I said earlier, I am not the minister who will determine raw log volume or any of the forest-based policy. That is the purview of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

What we did introduce in the three-year progress update of the jobs plan was the whole issue of manufacturing and a cross-sectoral overview. Currently work is being done with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, looking at value-added in terms of the forest sector.

From my perspective, the reason we added manufacturing was to talk about how we can analyze our export opportunities and how we can support manufacturers and exporters in a much more aggressive way. That work is in its early stages.

As I said earlier, I think that we look at the jobs plan as it exists today and the progress that we’ve made. But when we think about, “What is the next step. What is next for British Columbia?” I think it is certainly a focus on value-added. But again, each sector that is represented in the jobs plan looks at the policy issues and initiatives that are related to their particular sector. I don’t determine raw log policy.

What I do is lead cross-ministry work. In this case we are working with the Ministry of Forests, as I said, on that particular discussion.
[ Page 7788 ]

S. Simpson: Does the minister set criteria or, in the discussion, establish criteria that it’s hoped these other ministries that deal with direct issues, whether it be raw logs or anything else…? Manufacturing may be a similar area. But do the ministry and the minister set the criteria that other ministries, hopefully, are expected to look at when they look at how to maximize job opportunities in the province and create jobs?

Hon. S. Bond: My job as the economic minister is to ensure that we have the best analysis possible about changes to supporting manufacturers — for example, looking at value-added.

My job is to provide the context. Ultimately, the ministers themselves, who manage policy areas of their own, make determinations. My job is to lay out the context. What would happen if we were to see, for example, an increase in export in certain areas? What would happen? How do we support manufacturers? One of the things that I am most concerned about is that British Columbia has some very, very substantive…. For example, clean energy technology companies. What I do is look for that match. What do we need to do with that technology? Where do we look around the world in terms of how we can export?

When I talk about value-added, it’s not just the manufacturing process. It’s adding value to what we already do in British Columbia in terms of products that exist. How do we make sure we’re getting them into the international and global market place? As I said, supplier development, value-added — that’s the work that we just have underway in the ministry.

S. Simpson: One of the other areas where there are obviously challenges around government resources and other areas — and this is certainly true in the construction industry but not exclusively in the construction industry — is the question of the underground economy and the level of the underground economy.

Could the minister tell us: what are the responsibilities of her ministry in trying to address questions around the underground economy and trying to get those people who are working in that fashion to, in fact, play by the rules?

[1355]

Hon. S. Bond: We’re grappling with how we might be related to this question. I think we’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably best canvassed with the Minister of Finance. I say that because, in fact, while we deal with stakeholders — and obviously, the construction industry in particular — and are aware of those challenges, one of the things that the Finance Minister does is build a tax regime in British Columbia that incents participation in the real economy of the province.

While there may be some challenges, we are certainly seeing GDP growth. We’re seeing our economy behave fairly resiliently, considering we still have a very fragile global economy. We look at GDP numbers. We look at export, we look at value-added, and we look at manufacturing in order to try to grow the economy.

I was very, very pleased today to see that British Columbia is now in the top two of GDP growth in the country, second only to Alberta, and the numbers actually look fairly healthy, moving forward. We’re going to be cautiously optimistic about that but continue to work hard.

S. Simpson: With the issue of the underground economy, I’ll reference back to 2001. At that time the federal and provincial governments came together and formed what they called the joint compliance team. This included people from employment standards, WCB of the day, the Canada Revenue Agency and HRSDC. They formed these teams to investigate the underground economic activity in the province. Apparently, they visited over 400 construction sites and talked to 1,500 workers and contractors.

What they found was that 200 of the 700 people who identified themselves as employers were, in fact, employees by any measure or standard in that they didn’t set their hours or their daily tasks. They didn’t share in profits. They were accountable and answerable to others. The contractor wanted them to identify themselves as independent contractors. The joint compliance team determined that for all intents and purposes, they were employees.

The interesting thing there — and this is where it comes back, I think, primarily to this ministry — is that that joint compliance team estimated at that time that over $40 million of WorkSafe premiums were not paid, because if the independent contractors had been hired as employees, this would have been required under the law at employment standards. Of the 700 who didn’t identify themselves as employees, half of them failed to receive any overtime pay, statutory holiday pay or vacation pay. And I think the joint compliance team identified over $44 million in unpaid taxes to the B.C. government.

It does seem that, certainly, at employment standards and WorkSafe — particularly employment standards, because this isn’t happening on union sites, presumably…. We know it’s a concern to the industry.

[1400]

I know I had non-union construction company owners in my office in Vancouver back about a year ago. What they were saying…. They were frustrated. They said: “We play by the rules. We report everything. We do it all on the up and up, and we know a significant amount of our competition is not doing that. They’re doing something quite different, and it affects our ability to compete.”

That being the case, and presuming employment standards has a significant role to play in that discussion, how does that ministry — and WorkSafe, to ensure that
[ Page 7789 ]
they’re appropriately getting their premiums — respond to the underground economy and the work they need do to make sure that there are not decisions being made here that are inappropriate?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the information that I just received, also, from WorkSafe.

The member is correct. In fact, just as recently as March 12 the government of Canada…. The headline is: “Government of Canada Joins Forces with Province of British Columbia and Local Industry to Tackle the Underground Economy.”

I should note that the reason I’m not speaking to this as well as, I’m sure, the Minister of Finance could is because it is actually going to be in partnership with the British Columbia Ministry of Finance. It speaks to the fact that the B.C. Ministry of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency will host round tables with local business stakeholders to share ideas in terms of how to combat the underground economy. Obviously, some very good work is being done there.

From the perspective of WorkSafe specifically, there are a number of steps. First of all, there is information-sharing between WorkSafe and the CRA. They look for evidence of under-reporting when inspectors are out on sites. They also look and compare data. There is an ongoing flow of information about where there might be irregularities.

WorkSafe does pay attention to that. There is a good working relationship with the CRA, and again, there will be ongoing work done between the Ministry of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency to actually tackle this issue.

S. Simpson: Is there an expectation that employment standards will have a role in this? If so, what might that be?

[1405]

Hon. S. Bond: I should have made it clear to the member opposite, as well, that we did. That round table took place, I believe, in March. We did have a representative at the table for the very reason that the member would bring it up here, because we are engaged with stakeholders, we are connected to economic issues and also the relationship with employment standards.

There was a representative from our ministry engaged in that discussion. Obviously, if there’s any sense or information that either WorkSafe or other partners get that there is some form of concern about employers paying attention to employment standards, those issues are referred directly to employment standards. We are engaged in this discussion. We did have a role at the table, but the lead is the Ministry of Finance.

S. Simpson: Moving on to a different topic here, I’m looking to understand a little bit better the money that’s spent on advertising and promotion, by the ministry. Could the minister tell us what the advertising budget for the ministry is? How does that get divided between the different program areas of the ministry?

[1410]

Hon. S. Bond: We’re just grappling with…. I think the member opposite would know this from previous years. The administration of the advertising dollars is actually the accountability of the government communications and public engagement ministry. Those numbers are released in public accounts. Again, specific dollar amounts are under the auspices and the administration of the…. We call it, fondly, Giuseppe. That’s where that detailed data would be provided, because they, in essence, administer the advertising dollars that are spent.

S. Simpson: Does the ministry…? So the administration is with GCPE, but when they administer it, is it at the direction of the ministry? The ministry says, “We have an advertising program we want to pursue around the jobs plan” or “We’re looking to go overseas to promote economic development, and we have a plan we’re looking at and we’re going to spend X dollars,” and then, whatever the process, GCPE goes out and makes that happen? But is it the ministry that determines the program for the ministry on advertising?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite’s question, we work with GCPE, but we do provide the suggestions and the ideas about what we need to talk about. I know we could probably spend a lot of time about whether it’s advertising or whether it is…. There is always debate about that. I don’t consider what we do advertising. The funds still come through government communications and public engagement administration, but we are about providing information to people.

For example, we have been working to provide information on what is called the Welcome B.C. campaign. That really is about providing information to ensure that…. And it goes back, actually, to the questions that the member had yesterday about how we get information to newly landed immigrants, people who want to consider support and service. How do they get it?

That’s the kind of information campaign that we would be engaged in. One that we just worked on and presented to GCPE and worked with them was Welcome B.C. It was all about making sure that there is information available to people so that new and prospective immigrants can be connected to services.

That was really important for me. When I think about when you’re new in the country…. How do you actually know where to get help, and how do you do that? I don’t consider that advertising. I consider that an information campaign which leads to tangible support for people who may not have had it.
[ Page 7790 ]

In terms of process, what we do is we come up with the concept. Why do we need it? How would you take it forward? What target group are you trying to reach? But ultimately, the funding is under the administration and accountability of the government communications unit.

S. Simpson: Now, when I look…. I’m sure the government has this form. I’m looking at one company. I’m looking at KIMBO as a company that did significant work, that has identified about $1 million of work here in 2014. When they identify down the list, I think it’s about a little more than half of the ministry is identified as jobs training. Then there is about a third identified as GCPE, and then there are a couple in Health and one or two in Justice.

[1415]

Could the minister explain, then, on this form…? I think you probably know what I’m looking at. I’m happy to pass it over. They identify this and identify the ministry, and they identify GCPE as an entity unto itself for advertising. Could the minister explain when it is the responsibility of the ministry in this case where they seem to be very clearly identifying GCPE as distinct on some of these advertising items, and others are identified as the ministry? How does that work?

Hon. S. Bond: I’m just going to go back to the most important answer here. It’s that we, as a ministry, do not administer the funds for advertising or campaigns. I’m not sure of the list that the member has, but it’s very likely…. When campaigns are approved by GCPE, which administers the funding, they would obviously have to indicate who are the users of those dollars.

So yes, our ministry requested specific campaigns be designed, as I said to the member opposite: Welcome B.C. information for immigrants; Work B.C., to make sure that people are using the site to get jobs; Canada job grant information. We lay out the concept. GCPE then administers and manages the spending of funds. I can only say, to the point of the government’s procurement process, that the procurement services branch led a request for a standing offer process in 2013 for the purpose of establishing standing offers with suppliers to deliver a variety of communications-related products.

[1420]

KIMBO Design was selected as the lowest-cost provider. We don’t decide who to use. We don’t make the decision or approve the final expenditure of those dollars. That is done through the government communications branch. We do, however, utilize those services by, as I said, making sure that information is getting out to appropriate groups.

S. Simpson: I’m still trying to get this figured out. When I look at this list, for example, I look at the items under the category, the heading, of ministry that are identified as GCPE. A couple of education on-line campaigns; wildfire prevention; the teachers strike — there’s a piece there; LNG awareness; and a Family Day Facebook site — those are ones that are identified as GCPE directly, not as anybody else.

Then you’ve got Informed Dining, which is Health; the child tax credit Facebook, which is Children and Family Development; and there’s a VictimLink, for Justice. Then there’s this long list: Work B.C. social media; Work B.C. Facebook; Welcome B.C. — there are about four or five pieces of work for Welcome B.C.; and the Work B.C. blueprint. They’re all identified as the minister’s shop.

In this case, maybe I’ll try this question. Of the budget that we had last year and the budget that we’ll approve this year, when it identifies these things as the ministry, is that money coming out of the minister’s budget to pay for that? Or does GCPE have a separate budget that controls the advertising budget, and they pay for it there? Or is it an expenditure of the ministry, and it’s drawn down against the ministry and paid for by the ministry?

[1425]

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member’s question, it is a complicated process. Yes, there is an allocation that is set aside for information campaigns. As I said to the member opposite, we don’t advertise; we inform.

We have had some fantastic results — for example, the Welcome B.C. campaign. That money, however, is administered through GCPE. They make the final decision about a particular campaign, about the format, about the user, about the person that produces it.

We are clients of GCPE. We have an allocation that we set aside for information campaigns, and the member mentioned a number of them. One of them, for example, was about the Canada job grant. We can’t encourage B.C. businesses to take advantage of the Canada job grant if they don’t know it exists and how to use it.

There was a small campaign, information that was geared at businesses to say: “We want you to take advantage of the Canada job grant.” We take that concept. We go to GCPE. They say yes or no. They then go through…. With the use of their procurement process, they would choose the people that would create that campaign for us.

S. Simpson: Would it be the ministry…? For example, the ministry is looking to create economic development opportunity in the province, looking to create investment. There’s the major investment branch office that I know has responsibility for that.

They presumably have a campaign — call it advertising; call it what you want — to promote British Columbia outside of the boundaries of British Columbia and probably outside of the boundaries of Canada, to look at potential investors to come to British Columbia. Is that a campaign
[ Page 7791 ]
that’s developed in the ministry broadly? Some of the detail, obviously, the technical stuff, might be developed elsewhere. But is that a campaign that gets developed in the ministry and then gets accommodated by GCPE? If so, does the ministry have some control over what gets spent?

For example, I’m told that last year about $15 million got spent around promotion or advertising the jobs plan in entirety for the year — probably some in this ministry, maybe some in Advanced Ed. I’m not sure. But about $15 million got spent. I know it’s a bit of a challenge to try to figure out how much of that got spent promoting in British Columbia, whether it’s for businesses or whatever, and how much got spent promoting offshore to get people to come here and invest.

I’m trying to get a sense of how the balance is there. I’m assuming the ministry has some control over it when it says, “We want the emphasis to be offshore” versus “We want it to be in B.C.,” and then it’s accommodated. Could the minister shine some light on that?

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to make sure that we recognize that the notional concept the member has described is pretty accurate. As the program experts, we look at the areas that we think there needs to be information shared with a particular group of people or on a particular topic. We provide the program expertise. We are not the communications experts. The expertise that we rely on is through GCPE.

We would identify a need and suggest that we would like to move forward with a particular campaign, particular information that we share. Two of them that have been very notable recently are the Work B.C. campaign and the Welcome B.C. campaign. Those were our ideas. We recognized there was a gap. We kept hearing from people: “We don’t know how do this. We don’t know where to go. What are we going to do?” We made those recommendations. GCPE administers the funding and makes the final decision about what kind of information is shared.

I should also point out that the major investments office does not have any campaigns. In fact, most of the outward-looking information, or offshore, would now be managed out of MIT.

S. Simpson: One more question on this, just so I have clarity. The ministry says: “We want to do program X because we think that there’s an investment opportunity in Europe someplace. We want to go and let people know that British Columbia is a great place to come and bring your money, and here’s why” — part of our job strategy or economic strategy. That happens. It may be something else. The specifics of where it is are not particularly important.

So that occurs. Then you give that to GCPE, and they come back to you shortly and say: “Okay. Well, here’s the plan, based on what you want to do, and it’s going to cost $5 million” — to pick a number out of the air, $1 million. It doesn’t matter.

Then does the ministry sign off on that? That $1 million is coming out of your budget, so you sign off and say: “Yes, we agree. Let’s spend $1 million of our budget to do X, whatever that is.” That’s what occurs. Ultimately, the accountability for the $1 million rests with the ministry at the end of the day, because you’ve contracted this service within the government. Is that correct?

[1435]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we do engage with GCPE. They come back, and they will say to us…. For example, I remember looking at some of the graphics around Work B.C., because it mattered to me that we reach a new generation of workers, those kinds of things. Ultimately, the creative…. Those decisions are made by GCPE, but it is in consultation with us.

We allocate a notional amount that is in our budget, as the member opposite points out. It is administered by GCPE. We then take the concept and the need for that campaign to GCPE. They would look at it, come back to us and say: “What do you think of this? This is what our thoughts are.” Then they are responsible for choosing who produces it, who sends it out, who does whatever. We are not engaged from that perspective. We simply say: “Here’s the need. Here’s what we want.” We are clients of GCPE.

S. Simpson: I’m going to move to a different topic. I’m going to spend a few minutes here on some matters that more generally relate to the ministry.

We know that there was the core review initiative of the government in the last period of time. Could the minister update us on the impacts of the core review on her ministry and whether there were programs or services under the ministry that were reviewed? Were there any cuts or changes made in order to meet the objectives of the core review?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: The piece of work that was part of the core review on behalf of JTST was actually about regulatory reform. If you look at overall…. I think the question was: “Were there reductions or staffing issues?” The answer to that is no.

We looked at regulatory reform and whether or not we would continue to focus on net zero in terms of regulation. That was the discussion at core review that related to JTST. We clearly made the decision to continue to pursue regulatory reform, continue to look at net zero. If you introduce a regulation, you have to reduce regulations.

The discussion was more about how to focus in and ensure that it remains a priority for us as a government and that we are continuing to make a difference. That really was the issue that JTST dealt with at core review.
[ Page 7792 ]

S. Simpson: Other than the regulations…. Maybe we’ll just start there. Could the minister tell us what substantive decisions…? Is there a list of regulatory reforms that were put in place as a response to the core review? Could that list or some oversight of that be made available?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the result of the core review was that we would continue a net zero increase in regulatory requirements. We wanted to be sure we were always looking at best practices and ensuring that the way we focus on regulatory reform continues. There wasn’t a list of things that we needed to reform. It was the principle behind the work that we have done.

That was made public by the minister of state in January of this year — that the extension to net zero would continue until 2019 and that monitoring, tracking and public reporting would continue. We are required to publish an update in June of each year. That work is underway. That report becomes public in June.

Our major core review initiative was: “Do we continue with net zero or not?” Direction was provided that we would continue and look at ways to modernize and remain focused and relevant with regulatory reform.

G. Heyman: When I was here this morning asking questions of the minister, we were a bit constrained for time. If I recall correctly, I asked a number of questions combined into one. One that was fairly important to me to get a clear answer…. I didn’t come away from the minister’s answer feeling like her answer either understood the nature of the question or focused on it. So I’ll narrow the question a bit.

[1445]

With respect to green jobs — not just tech, but the various possible green jobs sector — are there clear targets and goals? Are there performance measures for meeting those goals? Are those targets, goals and measures — if they exist at all — broad, or are they specific and subdivided into subsectors?

Hon. S. Bond: I do remember there were a number of questions in one. I think I said — or if I didn’t, I will now — there are no specific targets in the current technology strategy or the technology and green economy sector — that sectorial update, for example, that we provided after three years, in the three-year progress update. There are no specific targets to say we’re going to increase jobs by 5,000 within the next two or three years, for example.

Having said that, there is, in particular, a technology strategy which is being refreshed under the leadership of the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. That work is underway. We are partnering and working with them. We will be looking at what it takes to spur growth, attract new companies. All of those things lead to job growth. The answer, with clarity, is that we currently do not have targets attached to the technology and green economy sector.

G. Heyman: In response to another question I asked the minister, she talked about the robust contribution of the technology sector to the provincial economy as well as the number of jobs in the economy. She used “we” to describe the success. I’m curious as to whether, by “we,” she was referring to government or the collective we of the B.C. economy or the tech sector.

The Chair: Member, could you just repeat that again? Sorry.

G. Heyman: . In response to a question this morning about tech sector strategies, green economy strategies, the minister responded with a description of the significant contributions of the technology sector to the B.C. economy, the number of jobs present in the tech sector, the relationship of wages in the tech sector in comparison to wages in other sectors in B.C. She used the term “we” to describe that as indicative of success. My question was, by the use of “we,” was she referring to the government or we the broader B.C. public and economy.

Hon. S. Bond: I heard it. The second time I heard it. Now I’m not sure I actually understand it, speaking of clarity. If the member is asking if we are responsible for the success of the tech sector in British Columbia…. Is it “we,” or is it “them”? I’m not sure if that’s the question. But I know this.

Our job is to create a climate that attracts and fosters innovation, growth and green technology. There is no one who can dispute that Vancouver and British Columbia are becoming a leading technology hub of the world.

Are we responsible? Not independently and uniquely. We have amazing and creative people and companies. But we are responsible for creating a climate that has low personal income taxes, that has a triple-A credit rating, a balanced budget — all of those financial things that make British Columbia a place where people choose to come and invest. We also have a skilled workforce. In fact, just recently we saw another technology company that spoke about the excellence we have.

[1450]

The success of a sector is not solely the government’s responsibility. But you betcha. We have a responsibility to make British Columbia a place that people choose to come and invest and grow their companies. We are seeing the number of tech companies grow exponentially, and not just today. We’re going to see those numbers increase. It’s about a combination of things.

My job as the economic minister is to make sure that we are paying attention to the factors that influence decisions by companies like Microsoft and Sony Imageworks,
[ Page 7793 ]
plus locally grown technology companies. Part of the amazing success is that these companies are locally grown, starting sometimes as small companies. So it’s a combination of factors.

I don’t claim credit where I don’t think we deserve it, but in this case, I think it’s about setting the stage, creating an environment that allows companies, particularly high-tech and clean energy companies, to choose to invest.

G. Heyman: There actually are people who dispute whether the tech sector in B.C. is vibrant and growing. It is. The industry’s report card gave the sector an A in comparison to the B.C. economy generally. But I would say the fact that the report card, which was based on a review of B.C.’s tech sector versus the rest of Canada and the sector south of the border, gave it a C-plus…. That is a growth from the C it got in the previous report card.

If we are in fact on the leading edge, how can the minister explain KPMG giving the sector only a C-plus compared to other leading tech provinces in Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: It’s just such an interesting discussion in estimates that the member would want to come in and talk about a sector that is absolutely growing, that is driving for success and innovation, and somehow make that a negative story. So we should be clear. I did not for one moment suggest that there wasn’t work to be done, which is in fact, why we are reaching out and holding, in the very near future, a round table with some of the top, top tech companies in British Columbia to say: “What are your workforce needs? What are the things British Columbia can do better?”

I’m certainly not satisfied with anyone suggesting that we deserve a C-plus. But all I can do is read, once again, for the member the record of improvement that has taken place in this province related to technology. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. But I am not going to stand and be shy about talking about the fact that in 2002 there were 66,000 jobs in the province, and today there are 84,000 jobs. That’s good news.

The revenue has grown from $13 billion in 2002 to $23 billion in the latest update, our three-year update, and we have seen average salaries go up. Those are the facts. Whether or not the government had a significant role to play in those growth numbers, the fact of the matter is that those are the numbers.

British Columbia is doing well. It is leading in many areas when it comes to green technology. The thing that I am most excited about? I think this is one of the sectors in British Columbia that has the most potential for growth, and we continue to see that day after day. We’re looking forward to working even more closely with the tech sector, looking very much forward to the exceptional response we’ve had to our request to come and talk to us about what things really matter.

Progress has been made. We reflected that in our three-year update, and we’re going to continue to work with the technology sector to ensure that we lead the country.

G. Heyman: I’m aware of the numbers, and I’m not trying to make the success of the tech sector a bad-news story. I’m hopeful that it can be a better-news story.

Those are good job growth numbers, and I’m sure the minister is aware that the sector has been very specific about some measures that could help steepen the curve of job growth over the next six years by about 31,000 additional jobs over what they expect to take place or be created in the way of jobs if we simply follow the paths that we’ve been following for the last while.

My final question is: does the ministry have a mechanism or a method to evaluate the efficacy of specific government actions in terms of growing both revenue and jobs in the tech sector?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to member opposite, this is an area of significant priority for the government. We are delighted with the success that we’re seeing in the province. We’re also very connected to the Premier’s Technology Council. All of the information and the types of questions that the member opposite brought to the table are things that we hope will be reflected and captured in the new technology strategy that’s being led, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, by the minister who’s actually responsible for technology in the government.

We’re well aware of the recommendations that have been made. Those are being considered as the strategy moves forward. As I’ve said, this is a government that has continued to focus on clean, green, the economy, the environment — all of those things. We’re starting to see incredible results here.

I look forward to the breakdown of the numbers actually. GDP numbers were out today, as I mentioned earlier, before the member was in the room. We’re very pleased to see British Columbia and Alberta as Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of GDP growth. Technology obviously has a significant role to play in that. The numbers will not actually be broken down until November, so we remain cautiously optimistic that we will remain in second place.

We have every confidence that the technology and green economy sector will continue to grow. We’re going to be as supportive as we possibly can working in concert with them. I’m very much looking forward to their input over the next number of days, in particular, as we meet with a large group of them.

G. Heyman: I will join the minister in celebrating the vibrancy of this sector and its actual contributions to our GDP, to employment and its potential contributions to future GDP and future jobs growth. I’ll simply say that whether it’s in the tech sector or many other sectors of
[ Page 7794 ]
B.C.’s economy, many people are relieved that they can finally get the government’s attention on something other than LNG, because they’ve been working hard over many years to both get attention and contribute their pieces to economic growth in B.C.

The minister has said to me a couple of times now that the strategy and the review of the tech strategy is being led by the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. Of course, I might not even be here asking those questions if the minister, new to the portfolio though he is, had been either willing to or capable of answering the questions that I put to him in his estimates.

My final question for the minister. I mentioned earlier that I could find $5 million of new money in this budget for anything that I could see related to green jobs. Is there a budget or is there a combination of pieces of budgets of different ministries that the minister considers dedicated to green jobs promotion, innovation or creation? If that’s a gathering exercise and it’s not possible to answer that in detail this afternoon, I’d be happy to get that answer in writing.

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: I’m probably going to point to one of the…. The member opposite says: is there anything in our budget that actually reflects and supports the green economy? It’s not directly in my budget, but I can tell you that today we spend $332.5 million on film and television tax credits. I would suggest pretty significant support of a green industry in British Columbia, which, by the way, is experiencing record production numbers all across the province. We look forward to celebrating with Creative B.C. this evening as they work with government.

To the member opposite’s comment about: we finally got the attention of this government. The jobs plan was produced in 2011. There were eight sectors in that jobs plan. We didn’t just wake up yesterday and realize that there’s an advantage and a prospering technology sector. In fact, the numbers that I quoted to the member opposite talk about growth since 2002, so we can actually see this government has paid attention. We’re very excited about this sector.

We have eight sectors in our jobs plan. For the member opposite to bring what is the constant message, that all we pay attention to is liquefied natural gas…. If that were the case, there wouldn’t have been eight sectors in the jobs plan. In fact, it wouldn’t be the case that British Columbia today…. Its GDP numbers are second-best in the entire country. The reason we manage to be in the position we are economically is because we have a diverse economy. If we were our neighbors next door, we would not be in the position we are today.

I am cautiously optimistic, as economists have pointed out to me, that we will hopefully lead the country in economic growth this year. You don’t do that on a single commodity, but we are going to be as aggressive as we possibly can to attract a new and supplemental industry to the province. We don’t have a jobs plan with one sector in it. It actually has eight.

S. Simpson: I’ve got two other questions, and then I’ll be finishing up the portion that I have.

I would note the minister’s comments about the diversity of the economy in regard to questions from my friend from Vancouver-Fairview. I would note that while I think the minister certainly has paid attention to the diversity of the economy, the leader of the government certainly had a pretty single-minded view of LNG for an extended period of time. That seems to have changed with the recent budget, but certainly the leader, the Premier, had a pretty single-minded view of the importance of LNG to the economy — in some people’s mind, at the expense of other things. That’s another topic.

My question is simply around contracts. I’m not going to ask the minister to read out a list of contracts, but I’m interested in knowing what contractual obligations the ministry has. Is it possible to get a list of contractual obligations with the names of the contractor and the values of the contracts and some synopsis in a sentence or two about what they are just so we have a sense of what those applications are? I know there was $4½ million or so the previous year. I think there was about $11 million in last year’s budget for contracts. Just to get that sense of that information.

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the public accounts will provide a very specific list of the contracts. What I can tell the member opposite is that we have two categories under which we have operational contracts: professional services — those are operational and advisory — and information systems. Public accounts will list all of them, obviously. We’ll take the question away and do some work on it.

We have two categories, though, as I said — professional services and information systems. The total budget for operational contracts in 2015-16 is $13.934 million.

We have obviously issued a number of new contracts over the last year between those two categories.

S. Simpson: That completes my questions for my portion. We’ll be turning it over now to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the tourism aspects of the ministry. I do intend to take the minister up on her invitation around written questions, specifically with WorkSafe — to contact WorkSafe directly and have some discussions with them in relation to some of the matters that we discussed in these estimates.

Other than that, I want to thank the minister and her staff for their efforts here. I’ll turn it over to the member.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to thank the member oppos-
[ Page 7795 ]
ite, the critic, for the questions, the respectful approach in the estimates. I really appreciate it.

I also want to say that there were a number of questions that triggered some thinking on our team’s part yesterday, and we’ll be following up with him on some of those issues that he brought forward, so I appreciate that.

D. Donaldson: I have a question for the minister that relates to tourism as well as the jobs file that she holds in her ministry. It’s an issue that she’s familiar with. We’ve talked about it in the Legislature informally, and I’ve written to her about the issue.

It’s a cross-border issue that relates to tourism, and it’s the border between the municipality of Stewart in my constituency and the municipality of Hyder in Alaska. Near the end of February the federal Canada Border Services Agency approached the mayor of Stewart and, without any prior consultation, informed her that the border would be closed from noon till 8 a.m. in a cost-saving measure. A gate would be erected at the border and closed, as I said, from noon to 8 a.m.

This came completely out of the blue for the municipal council and has some pretty important implications. They tried to negotiate. They realized and recognized that the traffic, especially during the winter months, isn’t great across the border between noon and 8 a.m. But they were hoping to at least get the gate open 24 hours a day in the summer months, when a lot of activity happens.

That was just late February. I wrote a letter to the minister regarding it on February 26. We had talked before then. She’s written back, and I thank her for that reply. I’m trying to encourage her and trying to get some answers from Ottawa on this question.

April 1 came along and the gate was erected a matter of just over five weeks after the issue was raised with the municipality of Stewart. The gate is in place now. I’ve raised this informally, again, with the Minister of Energy and Mines, which has implications there.

The implications are tourism, for one thing. Stewart depends on that in a very condensed season. I talked to a councillor, Patricia Lynn, over the Easter weekend. The place is full with sledders, snowmobilers from different parts of B.C., in the province.

[1510]

Of course, they don’t want to wait till 8 a.m. to cross the border, to go into good sledding territory on the other side of the border, back into Canada. That’s how you access parts of Canada within parts of B.C. that are on the other side of the border with Hyder. So that had implications already. Some of them are talking about not coming back next year.

From a tourism aspect, there are great bear-watching opportunities within Alaska on the other side of the border. Again, in the summer months they have a great RV crowd that comes to do that, and nobody wants to wait until 8 a.m. when the bears have departed from the viewing areas. Again, there are big implications there on the tourism business and mining exploration — and not just exploration.

When the season is short, the sunshine is up by 5:30 in the summer months. People want to take advantage of the snow-free conditions in a shortened season to get to work, and that has implications as well. I made the Minister of Energy and Mines aware of that, but it does have implications on jobs.

As well, I contacted Pretium, which has the Brucejack property that recently received its B.C. environmental certificate. They are going to be using that border access in order to access the B.C. side, on the other side, for construction of their mine once they get federal approval. They’re concerned about this as well.

In addition, I’ve had a couple of discussions with the Alaska state representative for that area, Dan Ortiz. In a really recent discussion I had with him just last week he said that he’s talked to the governor of Alaska, and they’re willing to look at some short-term solutions. There are safety issues. People from Hyder have to access the medical clinic, the hospital in Stewart, and there are social reasons, as well, and safety reasons for our workers who are in Canada, the B.C. side across the border, for accessing medical services as well.

So there are lots of good reasons for this border not to be shut between noon and 8 a.m. I don’t think that Ottawa really understands the situation very well.

As I said, the representative from the Alaska Legislature contacted me a couple of times. We’ve spoken, and I’ve discussed with the minister that he has said that the governor there has offered to pay whatever costs are required to keep the gate open — staffed, in other words — from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. during the summer months, as a transition until the Canada Border Services Agency can come up with a better plan.

He hasn’t met with a very good response from the Canada Border Services Agency on that. I’m writing a letter with him — a joint letter to Ottawa and Washington, D.C. I will provide the minister with a copy this week, of that.

I just wanted to let the minister have the opportunity to get on the record about the positive nature she’s approached this with, with me, so far — and I appreciate that — but to also commit to assistance in the future, especially around the issue with Ottawa. Her ministry’s office has a lot more clout directly with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness federally, Steven Blaney — and especially on this new twist where the Alaskan state taxpayers are willing to help fund the staffing of a gate by the federal Canada Borders Service Agency staff, as a temporary measure to alleviate some of the tourism and job concerns.

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly have had several discussions with the member opposite about this matter and want
[ Page 7796 ]
to reassure him that we have made contact directly with Minister Blaney’s office to talk about this issue. While the original discussion focused on tourism, it has since expanded to include the Minister of Energy and Mines here, because there are obviously economic implications from mining as well.

So we continue to be connected. In fact, we made contact with Minister Blaney’s office again as recently as yesterday to basically make sure that our federal counterparts understand the significance of that particular crossing. I do want to, and I hope the member opposite is….

[1515]

I was advised, when I looked at the file, that emergency services, in terms of their ability to get across the border…. There’s still the possibility that people can do that. That was my first question. What happens if there’s an emergency? Because there are, of course, shared medical services. I’m told that there is access to a 24-7 type of line that actually allows you to cross, and I’m hoping that is accurate.

But I can assure the member opposite that we’re in the process. The Minister of Energy and Mines and I are looking at whether or not together we can point out some of the concerns about the mining implications here. My office also reached out to the mayor of Stewart. I know this has been an enormous concern for her as well. I’ve appreciated the updates that the member has provided.

We are literally in contact with Minister Blaney’s office on a regular basis about the matter. The next step for us is to look at perhaps a combined representation from the Minister of Energy and Mines and myself on the file.

I would certainly appreciate a copy of the letter or anything that transpires or that is helpful. I don’t know the protocol around that joint funding option, but it certainly is one that the federal government should be made aware of. We will continue to work, hopefully constructively, with the member opposite to make the impacts well known to the federal government.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister and to her staff and to Destination B.C. staff for being here to be here to answer estimates questions today. I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Walden in the helijet lobby before we came over. I offered to do the estimates in the lobby there, but she politely declined, so I guess we’ll get to it now.

I’d like to start with a letter from the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., dated November 21, 2014, to the Premier. In it, the chair, Christine Willow, quotes a news release. I’ll just read her quote. It was a government news release.

“Destination B.C. was established on November 2, 2012, and will take full responsibility for operations on April 1, 2013. For the first year of operations the Crown corporation will receive the full funding that government has used for tourism marketing. After that, funding will be set based on a percentage of annual sales tax activity and enshrined in legislation. This move does not impact the government’s fiscal plan.”

She writes:

“It is our hope and expectation that this commitment will be fulfilled with the release of the government’s 2015 budget.”

As the minister knows, the New Democrats are strong supporters of formula funding for Destination B.C. Certainly, we were for Tourism B.C. Has the government fulfilled the Tourism Industry Association of B.C.’s expectations that formula funding will be in place for this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Bond: The minister of state and I would like to introduce the staff that support us on the tourism files. Kaaren Lewis is our assistant deputy minister of tourism and small business, and of course, we’re happy to welcome Marsha Walden, who is the CEO of Destination B.C.

To the member opposite’s question, we are still in the process, through the Ministry of Finance. We’re not designing the formula. The formula is still being developed. Our target implementation date will be 2016-2017.

When we look back at the comments that were made by the Premier…. I want to be very clear about this, and I will quote. “The funding will be based on a percentage of annual sales tax activity and will be enshrined in legislation.” The part that most people leave off is: “This move will not impact government’s fiscal plan.”

[1520]

One of the challenges we have is ensuring that we have the right formula in place. It is very complicated as you try to attach that to PST. As the member opposite, I know, would be well aware, we’ve had the PST back in place for two years. We need to make sure that the data that we have reflects the best current information that we have. The target date for implementation of the formula is 2016-2017.

D. Eby: We had a visit from private campsite operators in British Columbia. They brought to us the very concerning news that their business model is very much under threat given increasing property taxes, given that land values in resort areas across the province continue to climb.

They’ve asked for relief. I know that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has been supportive. I understand, actually, that the government has been supportive of this ask. I’m wondering: what are the plans to address this issue?

These private campsite operators, unlike the name might imply, actually provide public access to beautiful lakes and wilderness areas across the province and protect that access for the public, and provide a number of jobs in doing that. Will the government be acting to assist these operators in maintaining their business models?

Hon. S. Bond: It is an issue that’s been a concern. Both my colleague and I have had significant discussions, and we certainly have to reflect that the MLA for Cariboo-
[ Page 7797 ]
Chilcotin, actually, has brought this issue to our attention on numerous occasions.

We certainly respect the fact that this is an important issue for small tourism businesses. There was not an amendment to the Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act in 2014-15, but we are advised that the Ministry of CSCD and the Ministry of Finance are continuing to discuss it. Both of those ministries are actually the lead ministries on this file.

D. Eby: Earlier this session Bill 10 amended the Provincial Sales Tax Act to increase the maximum additional hotel room tax rate from 2 to 3 percent. In Vancouver that money goes to fund a group called Tourism Vancouver.

This is a technical question. Can the minister advise which hotels would be subject to pay the additional hotel room tax and any increase to that tax rate in Vancouver? Is it strictly hotels within the geographic boundaries of Vancouver? Is that the definition of who pays this tax? Or is it only in the downtown core? Just to clarify what I’m asking here.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: The provision is enabling. It won’t simply be restricted to Vancouver. In fact, there are municipalities across the province that could take advantage of it. But the member’s technical question is best addressed by the Minister of Finance. This is tax policy, and it was the Minister of Finance that introduced the tax-enabling provision in the budget.

D. Eby: Clearly, I wasn’t clear enough for the minister, and I’ll try again. There is a group in Vancouver called Tourism Vancouver that is funded by hotel tax revenue. Which hotels contribute hotel tax revenue to the funding of Tourism Vancouver?

Hon. S. Bond: Once the tax is in place, all hotels are subject to the tax. It is not simply the downtown of Vancouver; it is all of Vancouver. The definition of it would be accommodation with four rooms or more. That also includes, potentially, bed-and-breakfasts and a variety of other things. Once the tax is in place, all accommodation that has four rooms or more. If the member would like a specific list, we can certainly work to try to provide one, but it is all of the accommodation with four rooms or more.

D. Eby: I certainly would appreciate that list, and I thank the minister for offering.

As the minister knows, and as I know she’s heard me raise in the House, Tourism Vancouver has a fairly considerable debt associated with the convention centre in Vancouver. The connection between the debt and Tourism Vancouver is obviously that hotels and tourism promoters in Vancouver were reasonably expected to benefit from the construction of the convention centre, and so they pitched in some money towards its construction.

Can the minister advise, with respect to fiscal 2014 to the latest year that she has projections…? Starting with the most recent year when she has actual numbers and going to the furthest-out year that she has projections, what is the debt level that the ministry is projecting for Tourism Vancouver? Is it going up? Is it going down? What are the numbers? And what are the payments that the ministry expects to see from Tourism Vancouver towards that debt over the period that the minister has available?

Hon. S. Bond: I’m trying to be fairly efficient with time, because I know the member has a fairly constricted amount here.

[1530]

The agreement that the member references is actually an agreement between Tourism Vancouver and the Minister of Finance. I do remember, in canvassing this issue last year, that we are not, in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, a party to that agreement and cannot comment on the amount owing or the repayment schedule.

It is fortuitous for the member opposite that he will be able to bring…. These questions which relate to TICA or any proposed amendments to the PST should be canvassed with the Minister of Finance. His estimates are not yet complete, so the member will have time to do that.

D. Eby: I appreciate the minister’s efficient use of our time.

I’m moving now to regional destination marketing organization funding. As I understand it, there are five remaining regional destination marketing organizations in the province that Destination B.C. continues to fund — Cariboo Chilcotin Coast, Kootenay Rockies, Northern B.C., Thompson Okanagan and Vancouver Island.

Can the minister provide me with the annual funding for the remaining five RDMOs for fiscal 2014-15 and ’15-16?

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: The numbers I will give the member opposite are for this year and will be identical for the other year that he asked for, the subsequent year. Tourism Vancouver Island, $993,974; Thompson Okanagan, $1,308,449; Kootenay Rockies, $1,140,606; Cariboo Chilcotin, $678,246; and Northern B.C., $990,326 — for a total of $6,096,689.

D. Eby: The numbers that I have for fiscal 2013 and the numbers that the minister has just given me reflect
[ Page 7798 ]
a fairly significant decrease. Can the minister explain whether that’s actually the case? If so, what is the policy reason for that decrease in funding?

Hon. S. Bond: Considering the scope of years we’re looking at, we do not have the numbers for 2013 here. But I just want to reiterate that the numbers that I’ve read would be the numbers that were in place for 2014-15 and ’15-16, so there are no reductions there.

[1535]

We’re happy to go back. The CEO would like to verify those numbers, as you can imagine. She’s just had the job for a short period of time, and we don’t have those numbers with us.

D. Eby: Given that Destination B.C. ended their contract with Vancouver, Coast and Mountains RDMO, are there any other RDMOs that they anticipate ending contracts with in the coming years?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, no, there is no anticipated reduction from the five. In fact, there’s currently a negotiating process underway to look at multi-year contracts with each of those five organizations.

D. Eby: May I turn to the Cariboo-Chilcotin? This is an area, obviously, that’s been hit hard by cuts to the Discovery coast ferry and also by the Mount Polley disaster. Can the minister outline what measures, if any, are anticipated in the budget to deal with that to assist the community in responding to these crises?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’m going to address the member opposite’s question in two sections. First of all, maybe just to talk about the Port Hardy–Bella Coola adjustments to the ferry schedule and the impact it might have had on tourism.

We’ve looked at the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Coast tourism region very carefully — worked tirelessly with the CEO of that tourism association. The MLA for the area has taken a leadership role, working with the committee of the area — tourism committee members, key players of the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Coast region — to mitigate the impact of the ferry service changes and to grow some new tourism opportunities and markets based on the Gold Rush Trail. That’s their focus right now.

Destination B.C. has committed $100,000 in additional marketing resources last summer to the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Coast region to support tourism and draw visitors to that central coast area. The Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training was very active in the area in ensuring that the group had an economic plan moving forward.

The Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association attended many travel trade shows with Destination B.C. to ensure that the travel media was aware of the area. In fact, in May of last year Destination B.C. had trade meetings with tour operators at Rendez-vous Canada.

[1540]

This is the largest travel trade show in Canada. It brings many international tourism industry leaders together. Destination B.C. was very focused on ensuring that they’re aware of the attributes of this area.

The second community that the members opposite talked about was Mount Polley, and the impact of the tailings breach. This was something that occurred in August of last year. Since then Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training have worked with the folks on the ground and, in fact, provided the Likely Chamber of Commerce some money to identify some future economic activities and, again, with Destination B.C. ensured that the international tourism trade industry was well aware of the opportunities for folks to take advantage of the fishing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking, camping — all these attributes that this area still has to offer.

If the member opposite would like a further, more detailed list, I know that the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association has prepared an economic development strategy to execute to ensure that they don’t lose out on the tourism benefits to this region.

D. Eby: I heard two budget items in the minister’s list, and I appreciate her giving me that exhaustive list. But I’m curious about whether…. One was the $100,000 with respect to the coast, and one was the amount of money given to the Likely Chamber. I think that was $30,000. I can’t remember how much that was. The minister will correct me if I was incorrect.

Looking forward, in the budget that we’re being asked to approve here, is there any additional funding for Likely and for the coast to deal with these problems, or is the ministry leaving things where they’re at right now?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The actual figure for the contribution to Likely is $50,000. And I’m advised that they haven’t spent the money yet — maybe partially spent it. But there’s the bulk of it left.

The member opposite would probably be interested to know that Destination B.C.’s board of directors have decided, actually, to hold their next meeting, which is on May 14, in Williams Lake in order to engage with the Cariboo-Coast-Chilcotin tourism operators. They’ve invited the folks from Likely, as well, to attend that.

To let the member know that we will constantly, through Destination B.C., monitor the area to ensure that they’re getting the supports they need.

D. Eby: Looking at the budget for Destination B.C., there seems to be a 3 percent decline or reduction in Destination B.C.’s revenue. What accounts for that projected decline in revenue?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: The government contribution to Destination B.C. remains constant, so there has not been an adjustment there. Where the member is seeing an adjustment is…. There were a number of initiatives that Destination B.C. was undertaking in an effort to generate revenue, and in fact, those initiatives were running at a loss. Some of the reduction in revenue would be, for example, moving out of managing and utilizing a magazine, and also visitor services at YVR. The reduction is a result of seeing a drop in self-generated revenue and a decision to move away from initiatives that were actually unprofitable for Destination B.C.

D. Eby: The minister may recall in November of 2014 there was a controversy about visitor centres in the province and Destination B.C.’s plans for them. In particular, there were five centres that were listed as potentially being under review, and then there seemed to be a discussion that they weren’t actually under review. Those were the Peace Arch border crossing, Merritt, Osoyoos, Mount Robson and Golden. Can the minister clarify Destination B.C.’s plans for these centres for the current fiscal year and the next fiscal year? Will these centres continue to operate and be funded?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. There was certainly some discussion about that. The decision was made that the visitor services at YVR that I referenced in the earlier question would not continue because there was, really, a sense that services could be met in another way.

These visitor centres will remain an important part of Destination B.C. My colleague and I have had many discussions with the CEO about the role of visitor centres. What we have asked is that there be a really good look at changes in consumer behaviour. For example, travel information needs, how you get….

Most people are using some sort of technology to get their information. What we are saying is that there needs to be a look at how we modernize those centres, making sure that they are relevant and useful for people who are travelling in the world today.

The visitor centres will remain in place. What we are saying is: “What do we deliver from that particular bricks-and-mortar facility?” Yes, there was discussion. The decision was made to leave them in place, but we are saying that we need to modernize the services that may be offered in those facilities.

D. Eby: Does the minister have a timeline of that review, when she expects it to be complete, and any decisions implemented from that?

Hon. S. Bond: There has been extensive consultation, in fact, visiting a large number of communities, including inviting others to participate in that — I think over 16 communities. So lots of discussion.

The intent, I think, is to launch the strategy about modernization in October at the big meeting that Destination B.C. holds. We’re not leaving that for a long time. There will be discussion about what the strategy looks like in October at the very public meeting that they hold.

D. Eby: Then, if I understand this correctly, this is about the content of the visitor centres and how services are delivered rather than the funding. I know a number of municipalities are concerned about potentially being asked to take on the operating costs of these centres. If the minister could confirm that this is about content, rather than funding….

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite’s question, I just want to clarify that we’re talking about two separate groups of visitor centres.

There are five that are provincial in nature, and those are the ones that Destination B.C. funds. Those are the ones where there’s been consultation in terms of building open, building closed — obviously, building open — and what goes on in those buildings or how you utilize the services is the focus of that discussion.

There are 108 community visitor centres, which are primarily already funded by municipalities. But the general, the more intensive, discussion has been around the five provincial visitor centres, which will remain open, and how services are provided is what the discussion focuses on.

D. Eby: Destination B.C. was in the news for purchasing a virtual reality headset for delivering tourism viewing experiences to decision-makers at trade shows. Has the minister tracked, or has Destination B.C. tracked, how many people have actually taken the virtual reality tour using this headset?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This is actually a very timely question, and I’ll explain why at the end. This virtual reality headset uses innovative technology never actually used before in North America.

Destination B.C. does not actually keep stats of the number of folks that have actually experienced it at the travel trade shows, but they go to all the major international travel trade shows and there is a lineup throughout the whole show to experience this virtual reality show.

For example, in Berlin — I think it was last month — which is the world’s leading travel trade show, there were 10,000 exhibitors at the show representing 185 countries, and there was a lineup to experience this virtual reality marketing tool.

Destination B.C.’s virtual reality launch took place in December in New York and Washington, and the coverage resulted in 94 articles by prominent news and travel outlets, with a potential reach of 47 million impressions.
[ Page 7800 ]

This is actually not an experience that we are expecting the general public to be able to experience. This is really a business-to-business experience at travel trade shows with travel media and travel operators and wholesale tour operators.

Why it’s a timely question is that a week tomorrow the member opposite and folks in this House will actually be able to experience the Oculus headsets and the virtual reality experience. I would encourage the member opposite to do just that. We’ll give the member opposite some more information in the next few days, but the Oculus headsets will be coming to Victoria.

D. Eby: Thanks to the minister for that comprehensive answer. I understood that there was just one headset. It sounds like there’s more than one.

What was the total price tag on this, and how many headsets are there actually?

[1555]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’d like to remind the member opposite — and I believe he understands this — that these headsets are actually not for the general public. They are to be used at travel trade shows. I believe there are about ten headsets. They are around the world. Just last week I believe they were up in Whistler, which is why we have the opportunity to have the headsets here. Normally they’re out on the road.

The cost of the headsets — but this also includes the media and the travel trade show events, the cost of attending these — is about $650,000. But to put that into context, Destination B.C. spends about $8 million a year in this travel media. Typically, destination marketing organizations will be spending anywhere between 10 percent and 20 percent on the production side of the marketing. So this is well within that.

D. Eby: I’d like to thank the ministers for their answers and certainly the staff for their assistance during this. I apologize for staff coming all the way for such a short period, but I certainly do appreciate it very much. I understand we’re moving on to PavCo next.

Hon. S. Bond: We just want to thank the member opposite for his questions, for the process that unfolded that we went through this afternoon. I, too, on behalf of my colleague, want to thank our fantastic team, who basically have been engaged in this process for pretty much three days now. We very much appreciate their hard work and their expertise, and we look forward to passing the microphone on to the next set of estimates. So thank you to the member opposite.

Vote 31: ministry operations, $198,360,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will stand in recess for now.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $813,473,000 (continued).

D. Eby: These questions will focus exclusively on the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, so if there are any staff that cover any other areas, they can feel free to head out. I do expect to go until the end here. I’d like to thank the minister and his staff for coming today to assist the minister.

[1605]

I’d like to start with the issue of severance and compensation at the Pavilion Corporation. In the past two fiscal years how much has PavCo paid in severance, and how many severance packages were given out in each year?

[1610]

Hon. T. Stone: For the last fiscal year there was one severance payout respecting a senior executive–level position at PavCo. That was paid out to a former general manager in the amount of $438,575, and that was paid as salary continuance. I would also point out, for the member’s information, that it was paid out and disclosed in accordance with the Public Sector Employers Act.

D. Eby: My question related to the last two fiscal periods. Was that the only severance that was paid out over the two periods?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, over the last two fiscal years, the details were as follows. In 2013 there were no severance payments. In 2014, as I mentioned in my previous response, there was one severance for a senior executive, and I indicated the amount in my previous response. That was for the former general manager. There were also a couple of severance payments related to junior staff positions in the organization, which staff do not have the details on here today. But we would be happy to provide those details in written form for the member as soon as we can pull them together.

D. Eby: Is the minister aware of any severance payments made in the current fiscal period?

[1615]

Hon. T. Stone: For the current fiscal year there has been one severance — again, of a junior staff position, an administrative position. As per my last response, the staff
[ Page 7801 ]
don’t have the details of that particular severance, but we’ll include that in the summary that we send to the member. There is also one severance that is being negotiated at the present time with a senior manager — not an executive, not an administrative employee but a senior manager. But because that negotiation is just in midstream, I can’t disclose any of the details of those discussions at this time.

D. Eby: Did Kathy DeLisser, head of operations at B.C. Place, receive a severance? If she did, what was the value of that severance?

[1620]

Hon. T. Stone: I am going to indicate for the record here with the member that actually, for reasons of personal privacy, I’m not going to confirm any individuals’ names that may be the subject of negotiations from a severance perspective. But as I said in my last response, there is one senior manager that we are in the midst of negotiating with at the present time with respect to severance, and my staff inform me that a resolution to that severance discussion is imminent.

D. Eby: What was the cost of the Canam v Freyssinet lawsuit to B.C. taxpayers? And if the minister can break out the cost of lawyers separately from the cost of any settlement amounts, that would be helpful.

Hon. T. Stone: The item that the member is referencing was a court case centred on a dispute involving two subcontractors, Freyssinet and Canam. These were contractors that worked on the B.C. Place roof. We understand that the subcontractors have reached an agreement.

I think it’s very important to highlight that PavCo incurred only some very minor costs, literally a couple of hours worth of legal time at the very front end of this case. That was at a time when PavCo was an observer to the case. PavCo was subsequently excused completely from the case and incurred no further costs whatsoever related to this particular lawsuit between these two subcontractors.

D. Eby: Clearly, the minister had a better French mark in high school than I did. “Freyssinet” — I’ll work on it.

[1625]

Can the minister advise whether Canam or Freyssinet were offered future construction projects from B.C. as part of any settlement?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

D. Eby: Moving on to the B.C. Place turf. Edmonton’s Commonwealth Stadium has artificial turf and their director told the newspaper there that their turf lasts eight to ten years. It’s an outdoor stadium with Edmonton winters.

B.C. Place’s artificial turf was replaced after just 3½ years after numerous complaints related to the impact on athletes — that it had very little give.

Has PavCo identified the problems that took place during the tendering process that led to this very significant expense being incurred so quickly, after just 3½ years of use and so many complaints, and addressed it in the tendering process that it just went through with respect to the replacement field?

[1630]

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: In response to the member’s question, there actually were no problems with the tendering process for the last set of turf, so there were no lessons to learn moving forward. I think, more substantively, on the question relating to why the turf is being replaced, there are a couple of factors there.

The current turf, which is being replaced, is in the fourth year of its five-year warranty. It was being considered for capital replacement in PavCo’s capital plan for 2016-17 anyway.

In addition to that, the upgrading of the turf to the standard that is represented in the new turf meets the requirements of the world rugby sevens which, as the member knows very well, has been awarded to Vancouver. One of the key items in the bid package was for this particular type of turf to be in place, so we decided to move forward on that basis. The turf will also be of benefit to the FIFA women’s world tournament, which will be held in Vancouver as well.

I should also point out that the Canadian Soccer Association and Rugby Canada will be cost-sharing or funding partners on the purchase of the new turf as well, which also added to our consideration to actually move forward with this purchase of new turf.

D. Eby: Edmonton’s Commonwealth Stadium is also participating in the women’s FIFA World Cup. According to the Edmonton Journal, they’re getting their new field for $800,000, and the successful bidder in B.C. was $1.327 million. Will the minister release the unsuccessful bids as a point of comparison so that we can understand why there’s such a significant price difference between what B.C. is getting and what Edmonton got?

[1635]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the turf replacement at B.C. Place, I think, as the member knows well, there are a variety of factors that come into play in this kind of a request for proposal, which is what this was. The factors included, obviously, price but not just price. Also looked at product quality, overall quality of the product, of the end result, the surface.

The vendor’s ability to meet all of the requirements was the critical piece in this request-for-proposal process.
[ Page 7802 ]
There were, I believe, four proposals that were received. Centaur Products was the only vendor that actually met all of the requirements in the request for proposal.

[1640]

I should point out that the critical piece there was that they were the only vendor that actually was able to put forward a product that would be FIFA two-star rated and certified as well as would meet International Rugby’s regulation 22, it’s called, which relates to it being compatible and able to be easily used on top of the existing elastic underlay.

There was also one other key component to the successful bidder’s package — which, again, from an overall value of the proposal perspective, really set them apart from the other vendors — and that was that their proposal included a field inlay.

I’m sure the member is a football or soccer fan. When you see on real grass, for example, an athlete fall on their head or their shoulder or whatnot, you can often see a puff of dirt come up from the natural grass. The vendor will be providing a similar inlay-type product which goes into the material.

It actually, at the end of the day, results in a much, much higher quality product that will be more durable and a better product for the athletes who will be using this surface.

D. Eby: Will the minister release the unsuccessful bid documents?

Hon. T. Stone: I may have mistakenly used the word “inlay” previously. I meant the word “infill.” That is the material that goes on top of the….

A Voice: I was going to say something.

Hon. T. Stone: Yeah, there you go. It’s late.

In terms of the member’s other question, no, the unsuccessful proposals will not be released. PavCo’s decision to not disclose the bid amounts for unsuccessful proposals is consistent with government’s core policy.

D. Eby: Can the minister briefly explain what government accords policy is? I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that document.

Interjection.

D. Eby: The minister has corrected me. It’s the government’s core policy. I guess that’s the core policy of government rather than a policy called core. Is that correct? We’ll have to follow up about that off line, because this is valuable time.

In the 2017-18 budget for PavCo, the five-year financial comparisons for operations, there’s a $15 million line item under “Other revenues.” I assume this is for the site 10C lands. I understand that the government has delayed the sale of the land given the uncertainty around the Georgia Street Viaduct.

Can the minister clarify whether there is any impact on the estimated value of that land given the fact that the viaducts may come down? And has PavCo considered the impact of the viaducts coming down with respect to the value of that land before it’s sold?

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: I think there are a couple of questions in there. I think the first question was: do the revenues that are indicated as other revenues relate to site 10C? Yes, that is correct.

Secondly, I think the member was asking if the number being in ’17-18 versus ’16-17 in some way represented a delay that we were anticipating in light of the discussion that’s ongoing with respect to the viaducts. The answer would be yes.

This is a piece of property that’s been identified as a surplus asset for government. We obviously want to maximize the value of this piece of land. Depending on where the viaduct discussion lands at the end of the day, it will impact the value of the land — no question. The discussions are underway, or have been underway for quite some time with the city of Vancouver.

We’ll hope to see those discussions move along as quickly as possible. That being said, at this point we’re quite confident that the projected estimate here of roughly just north of $50 million is a very reasonable expectation. Potentially, the end result could be more than that, depending on where things end up with the viaduct discussion.

D. Eby: Will PavCo engage another expert to provide an appraisal in the event that the viaducts do come down, or at least before selling it in 2017-18, given the volatility in Vancouver’s real estate market?

Hon. T. Stone: As I said in my last response, obviously, we’re going to do everything we can to maximize the value of this particular parcel of land. There is a very important discussion underway with the city of Vancouver with respect to the viaducts which the member rightfully pointed out. We want to do right by the city of Vancouver at the same time as maximizing the value there.

Absolutely, PavCo will engage an independent appraiser who will appraise the value of that land before it’s put on the market. That will, again, take place once we know where things end up with respect to the viaduct discussion that’s underway with the city of Vancouver.

D. Eby: There seems to be some tension between the Pavilion Corporation goals of ticket sales and access to B.C. Place and the government’s goals of maximizing property value around site 10C. I point the minister to
[ Page 7803 ]
page 6 of the Pavilion Corporation service plan. It might just be my reading into it, but it sounds….

I’ll just read it to the minister. “While the city of Vancouver is proposing to remove the eastbound Georgia viaduct, PavCo has indicated that it will not support the proposal if B.C. Place and PavCo are negatively impacted in any way.”

Here’s the situation where maximized revenue with the viaducts coming down flows to government, not necessarily to PavCo. And yet, there may be a fairly significant negative impact to PavCo during the construction around taking down the viaducts.

Can the minister explain how he will manage that tension between the goals of PavCo to maximize ticket sales and access to B.C. Place and the goals of the government to maximize the value of this particular property, given this statement in the service plan?

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: The member rightly points out that there are two overriding objectives here, which frankly, I don’t believe are mutually exclusive. There is an objective with respect to maximizing ticket sales and events at B.C. Place. There is also a key objective here to maximize the value of that land.

With respect to the discussions that are underway with the city of Vancouver in terms of the viaducts potentially coming down, obviously there will be some disruption with respect to that. There always is in a construction situation.

That being said, I think the key to the paragraph that the member read is the last sentence, which is that PavCo is working with the city to address PavCo’s concerns as part of the city’s viaduct consultation process. The city of Vancouver needs PavCo, and PavCo needs the city of Vancouver.

There is a tremendous opportunity here, through whatever ends up happening, with the viaducts complemented with the sale of site 10C and the potential development there, to potentially transform this whole zone of Vancouver in an extremely positive way. That, again, will be of great benefit to PavCo but also of benefit to the city of Vancouver.

I know that that is certainly the objective of both our friends at the city of Vancouver as well as those within PavCo who are actively engaged in those discussions.

D. Eby: I think we can certainly imagine the excitement of high school students who had the opportunity to participate in the B.C. High School Football championships at B.C. Place. What a remarkable, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them.

I was surprised to read that they were charged $20,000 to use B.C. Place, especially knowing that the government had $2.7 million to subsidize the Grey Cup bid. Surely, the Grey Cup could have survived with $2.68 million and a free ride for the high school kids.

Can the minister explain why such an unusual divergence when you’re talking about amateur sports in B.C. and professional national sports in terms of support? It’s $2.7 million for the CFL; a $20,000 bill for high school students. Is there a way in this budget that we can address that issue for this coming fiscal year so that the high school students get to enjoy this public asset at a level of subsidy far below the CFL but one that would make a huge difference to amateur sports?

I’m sure there are other high school championships for which this would be a remarkable opportunity. It seems to me that on both sides of the House we would support an amateur sport program where kids were subsidized to play at B.C. Place. Given the money that seems to be on the table for subsidies, I’m sure the minister could find some. Is there some money in the budget for that kind of thing?

[1655]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, the B.C. High School Football championship, the member points out, rightfully so, is a very, very successful event held at B.C. Place. He’s right. When you talk to the kids involved, it is a very important moment in their lives that will resonate with them for many, many years.

The approximately $20,000 cost to host the B.C. high school championship simply covers some very basic recoveries. It covers some salaries and staff and so forth. There’s security, housekeeping and whatnot.

[1700]

The B.C. high school championship — our understanding is that they actually sell tickets for their event at B.C. Place. The $20,000 wouldn’t, obviously, represent their total cash outlay at the end of the day once you net out the recoveries that they would get back through ticket sales. Nevertheless, the member raises a very good point.

One of the core mandates of B.C. Place…. There are two mandates. One is to provide community benefits, and the other is to provide economic benefits. On the community benefit side, there is no question that supporting amateur sport, like the B.C. high school championships, is something that makes a huge impact on the lives of a lot of kids.

In terms of the member’s question around whether PavCo would consider some type of an amateur sport program that would offset some of the costs that had previously been charged to amateur organizations, I certainly think that’s something that PavCo could and should and will look at for consideration.

But I want to come back to the economic benefit piece, with respect to the Grey Cup. The member is quite right. There was a $2.7 million investment by the province of British Columbia in securing the Grey Cup. I mentioned a moment ago that one of the key mandates of B.C. Place is economic benefit. The hosting of the Grey Cup generates
[ Page 7804 ]
well north of $100 million of economic benefit, largely to Vancouver. That’s all the hotel room stays and the restaurants, the pubs, the bars, merchandise purchases and people that shop when they’re in Vancouver and so forth. So one heck of a good return — a $2.7 million investment for well north of $100 million of economic activity.

I will sum, again, by saying this. Community benefits are very important, so we’ll look at the amateur sport piece, the suggestion that the member has mentioned, but so is the economic benefit. There is a cost to running a building the size and complexity of B.C. Place.

D. Eby: Well, I’m certainly heartened that the minister would look at support for our future CFL players in British Columbia.

Another childhood question here. I grew up in Ontario, and one of my fondest memories as a kid: birthdays, where the family would go to see the Blue Jays play, first at Exhibition Stadium and then at the SkyDome. Lots of fun, and one of the things that I miss being out here. I love the Canadians, but it’s hard to compete with major league ball.

Can the minister confirm that PavCo has been investigating the possibility of major league exhibition games at B.C. Place and that they’ve been doing some testing with respect to pop fly testing and the scoreboard at B.C. Place to see whether it can go high enough to avoid interfering with the game? If they have, and he can confirm that, can he tell us whether we’re going to be seeing exhibition games here in Vancouver in the future?

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to major league baseball, I share the member’s obvious passion for baseball. I grew up with the Blue Jays as well, albeit in the interior of British Columbia. I’ve only been to one game in Toronto, but a few more in Seattle.

It would be great to see baseball at B.C. Place. Certainly, B.C. Place and PavCo are always keen to explore new opportunities for new sports and new events at B.C. Place. Again, rugby sevens is a terrific example of a new sport that’s going to debut at B.C. Place. They’ve signed a three-year contract — a tremendous economic opportunity generated as a result of that.

With respect to major league baseball, while there have been occasional discussions in the past with various interests, nothing is being discussed formally at the present time in terms of major league baseball playing any exhibition games inside of B.C. Place.

The member asked a very specific question around if there has been any pop fly testing done with respect to the scoreboard and so forth. Approximately six to eight months ago there was some pop fly testing done. There would need to be modifications as a result of that testing because of the height of the scoreboard and so forth. But again, that’s all very preliminary because there aren’t actually any ongoing discussions about having a major league baseball team play even exhibition games inside of B.C. Place in the near future.

D. Eby: My colleague from Vancouver–West End was telling me about his childhood memory, growing up here in Vancouver, of going to see the Mariners at B.C. Place play the Jays. So it’s happened before. It would be great if it could happen again. I hope the minister encourages PavCo to get on those modifications as soon as possible.

There were some ornamental lights on the roof of B.C. Place. Water got into them. They proved to be defective. The company that manufactured them has since gone bankrupt. Does PavCo have any plan to address that issue, or are we just going to leave it as is?

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, as part of the revitalization of B.C. Place, twinkle lights were installed. I can’t believe I just used the word “twinkle” on the record. There, I said it again. They were actually installed on 36 cables. The twinkle lights — three times — malfunctioned. The first time was due to water that got into the luminaires. They were then replaced, under warranty, by the manufacturer. They failed a second time. PavCo thinks it was because of lightning strikes in the area. That’s still being determined.

At the end of the day, PavCo is exploring all options here to figure out how to get the twinkle lights twinkling again. There are discussions underway with PavCo’s insurance provider as one avenue, and there have been some preliminary discussions also with the general contractor.

D. Eby: I’m going to move to attendance targets for B.C. Place. One of the notable things with…. It’s fascinating. If you look at the convention centre delegate-days targets, the convention centre is consistently within 5 percent of projections, I would say — the numbers that I have.

[1715]

Yet B.C. Place, starting from 2009 to 2013, is missing by anywhere from 15 percent to 38 percent to 21 percent. How does the minister explain B.C. Place missing its attendance targets so badly, and what is he proposing to do to address this?

[1720]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the attendance at B.C. Place that the member, I think, mentioned in the kind of opening part of his question — some comment relating to missed attendance targets in past years…. I can’t remember for certain, but I think he may have mentioned as far as back as 2009. This was exactly why the revitalization of B.C. Place was so important.

Government continues to believe passionately to this day that investing in the revitalization of B.C. Place, which is such a critical asset, was really important in or-
[ Page 7805 ]
der to move the venue to the next level. We’re actually seeing that in terms of the overall attendance levels.

When you look at the revitalization of B.C. Place — it was actually completed in 2011, as the member knows — the actual attendance in that year was about half of what it has been since. The number is about 646,000 people. But that number is low because that was the year that the revitalization was done, so it was kind of like a half-year availability for events. When you look at the next year, in 2012-13, the total attendance at one point actually modestly exceeded the target for that year, from an attendance perspective, for B.C. Place.

Again, we spoke about this in a previous exchange with respect to the mandates at B.C. Place, which is in large part community benefits but also economic benefits. The member knows some of the recent events which have been held at B.C. Place, which were only really attracted to the venue because of the revitalization that was done.

The Grey Cup, which I mentioned earlier, contributed somewhere in the neighbourhood of $117 million of economic activity to the province. Taylor Swift’s concert in 2012 was $11 million in economic benefit; a Justin Timberlake concert with $10 million; a Paul McCartney concert, $14 million. The 2014 NHL Heritage Classic, which was a wild success, generated about $15 million of economic benefit.

On a go-forward basis, obviously there’s the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2015, which is projected to generate $52 million of economic benefit. The World Rugby Sevens Series — we’ve talked about that — will generate a tremendous amount of benefit. And while it’s a ways out, one of the largest conventions in the world is the Alcoholics Anonymous International Convention, which is confirmed for Vancouver in B.C. Place in 2025. That’s estimated to attract 48,000 delegates and an economic benefit of about $71 million.

Again, we’re seeing really good progress on the goals of increasing attendance at B.C. Place as we attract more and a broader variety of specialty events to the stadium. I should point out that the two major sports franchises which use the facility, the Lions and the Whitecaps, are also important parts of the future of B.C. Place. The Whitecaps, of particular note, have seen a very steady increase in their attendance, with many sellouts recently. Obviously, PavCo is keen to continue to work cooperatively with those two anchor tenants on a go-forward basis, which will help drive further attendance.

D. Eby: What were the actual B.C. Place attendance figures for 2014-15?

[1725]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of attendance at B.C. Place for ’14-15, as I’m sure the member knows, in the forecast the forecasted number is 1.049 million visitors. PavCo is feeling pretty good about that number. They’re still completing their final compilation work on the final number, which will be released as part of the public accounts release this coming July.

D. Eby: I’m going to ask the minister to push his staff a little bit and push the PavCo staff. I’m going to quote from the service plan: “Revenues at B.C. Place are driven by event attendance as well as advertising and sponsorship activities. Increased attendance drives higher sales of stadium services, primarily food and beverage.”

Is the minister saying that PavCo won’t know until July how many people walked through the door in the last fiscal period? How can it be that they’re not tracking this, event to event, on an Excel spreadsheet? I simply find that incredible.

I’m going to ask the minister to push his staff a little bit here and to find a number, even if it’s a preliminary number, for attendance at the facility. I find it bizarre that they wouldn’t have that at their fingertips.

Hon. T. Stone: As I said in my previous response, the forecast was 1.049 million attendees, the forecast for ’14-15, and PavCo is reasonably confident that that number looks pretty solid. They are still completing the compilation work on the actual numbers, and those numbers are always released as part of the public accounts process, which the member knows well, is this coming July.

D. Eby: I’m going to refer the minister to the 2012-13 service plan in which PavCo projected a target of 1.5 million attendees for B.C. Place.

Here I’m hearing that they’re going to hit the target because the target is 1.05 million people. Why did the target change from 2012-13 to 2015-16, and was the target changed in order that PavCo could hit it?

[1730-1735]

Hon. T. Stone: I’m going to endeavour to actually get something in writing to the member, as well, to provide a bit more context to this. There are a whole bunch of different moving parts here that came into play that explain the difference between what the projection for ’14-15 was back in ’12-13 and what we believe the actual will end up being. Again, this will be released in the public accounts in July.

A variety of the factors include a number of signature events — large ones like the international car show, which had been held typically in B.C. Place. It was moved over to the Vancouver Convention Centre. So that’s a net-net for PavCo. It doesn’t change much in overall attendance numbers, but it did have the effect of inflating numbers at the Vancouver Convention Centre and reducing the numbers at B.C. Place.

There’s also, I think, some realization that the increases
[ Page 7806 ]
in attendance of the two anchor tenants, the Lions and the Whitecaps, have not materialized as quickly as were originally projected. Then there is the whole challenge of nailing down the timing of the larger events, the marquee events that PavCo proactively seeks around the world.

Obviously, as the member knows well, in a three-year service plan, your numbers in that third year are going to be much more tenuous than your numbers in your first year — and your second year, for that matter. The actual timing of these events, when you actually get a firm commitment in the door for an event to be held, can swing your numbers quite significantly.

Again, it’s a whole combination of different factors, some of which I’ve just rattled off. As I said, I’d be happy to provide the member with a bit more context in response to his question on this particular issue.

D. Eby: I’d certainly welcome anything the minister wants to send my way. That’s for sure. Please feel free.

I’d like to move on to the video board at B.C. Place. Last July the roof was left open, and rainfall affected the electronics in the video board. Has anything been done to fix this problem so the roof can remain open when there’s a possibility of rain? Given that it’s in Vancouver, that seems like it would be a good feature.

If the issue has been addressed, how much did the repairs cost, and who paid for them?

[1740]

Hon. T. Stone: The issue that the member has raised was indeed an issue that was caused by water getting into the electronics. This was not an issue that was covered by warranty. There was no warranty in place, so it was work that was done by and covered by PavCo. I think it occurred back in the fall of 2014. Staff advise me that the issue is fixed on a go-forward basis now, so they don’t anticipate there being any challenges with water getting into the electronics again.

I don’t have a specific dollar figure as to what the costs of the repairs were — although, as I said, they were accommodated from within PavCo’s maintenance budget. We’d be happy to follow up with the member on that, however.

D. Eby: I appreciate the minister’s offer. I’ll take him up on that — if he could please send me the amount that was paid for the repairs and for the remedial work there.

On the issue of remediation, the B.C. Place roof. At a Whitecaps game August 30, 2014, the roof leaked so badly that buckets were deployed and free beer was given out to attendees. After the leak PavCo told the CBC: “Workers are currently in the process of addressing deficiencies with the fixed fabric roof. This remedial work is scheduled to be completed in November. There is no cost to PavCo for this work.”

Can the minister advise whether the remedial work has been completed and, if so, whether it was in fact at no cost to PavCo?

[1745]

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, as the member points out, there was an issue with respect to water getting in through the roof on that day in August 2014. The remedial work was done. It’s completed. We don’t anticipate any similar challenges in the future, and this work was done at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

D. Eby: Can the minister explain what the issue was and who actually paid for the cost of these repairs?

Hon. T. Stone: The member will recall that there was an issue relating to grease on panels of the roof of B.C. Place. The general contractor was replacing those panels with new fabric panels. As part of that process, there’s a lot of work that has to be done to seal the panels with the rest of the roof. You actually don’t know, at the end of the day, if every seal is completely in place as it should be, until it rains.

The general contractor who did all the work…. Again, there was no net cost, no additional cost, to the taxpayer. It was borne by a combination of insurance proceeds and the general contractor. You don’t actually know if every seal is completely sealed until it rains. Obviously, there was a pretty heavy rainfall that day. It identified a few locations where the seals hadn’t been completely sealed, and the remediation work was completed.

As the member would know well, there have been many, many rainy days since, and thus far the roof, which is ten acres of fabric, by the way — not an inconsequential size of fabric, with a lot of seal — has performed very, very well.

D. Eby: The minister mentioned the grease leak issue that went to litigation, as far as I understand — and not relevant to the question. In any event, has that grease leak issue been addressed, or will there be additional panel replacements in the future?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, with respect to the grease issue, the grease on panels, that issue also has been completely remediated. All the work is done, and again, that work was done at no cost to the taxpayer.

D. Eby: The minister will remember that there was a fuss about corporate naming rights related to B.C. Place, where Telus was in discussions with PavCo around sponsoring B.C. Place.

[1750]

It’s my understanding that in fact discussions had moved so far along that there was a sign made for Telus park. Can the minister advise how much was paid for the sign? Where is that sign now, and what’s the plan for it?
[ Page 7807 ]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the sign in question, the sign is the property of Telus. The actual cost to create the sign was completely borne by Telus. PavCo has never known how much that sign actually cost and really had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I have no idea where the sign is at the present time.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise how much is budgeted for the maintenance of the roof of B.C. Place for the fiscal period? Both the most recent budgeted and actual figures for roof maintenance would be helpful.

[1755]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the member’s question around the budget for roof maintenance at B.C. Place, the dollars that are allocated towards roof maintenance fall within the…. I’m looking at page 19 of the service plan, for the member’s reference here. Under the operating expenses, there’s a global number that’s listed there. For ’13-14, the actual was $4.669 million. It’s forecast for ’14-15 at $4.539 million.

That’s a global number that includes operations for all of B.C. Place. In that number you’ve got your maintenance costs, utilities and a number of other things. We don’t have a granular breakdown of the numbers, so I wouldn’t be able to provide the member today with a specific number that represents the maintenance allocation for B.C. Place, for the roof, but we can certainly endeavour to pull that number together for the member.

D. Eby: I will take up the minister on that.

On that note, I’d actually like to take the minister back to estimates, April 1, 2014. My colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings was the critic, and he was asking about a third-party evaluation that PavCo had received in relation to the site 10A property.

The circumstances were that Paragon had come back to PavCo and said that the $6 million lease payment was not possible, that they would only be able to pay $3 million a year for the site 10A property. The minister had said there was an independent assessment done that confirmed that $3 million was a reasonable figure.

My colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings requested a copy, and the minister was kind enough to say: “If the member would like a copy of the independent assessment that was done, that PavCo did, we would be more than happy to ensure that he’s provided a copy of that document as soon as possible.”

We haven’t received it, and to put all the cards on the table, I’m not sure that we followed up to ask for it. But I’m just asking that the minister again, on the record, would confirm his willingness to release this report and will in fact release it to us.

Hon. T. Stone: The member has asked about a copy of the independent assessment for site 10A. He’s quite correct. His colleague from Vancouver-Hastings asked if we would be willing to provide a copy of that.

We normally do a very good job of actually keeping track of all of the commitments that we make to MLAs, and so I do apologize on behalf of our team. There’s no reason whatsoever that we can’t provide that copy, so we’ll endeavour to provide that to you as soon as possible.

D. Eby: I thank the minister. There are a lot of moving parts, as I said, and I’m fairly certain that we didn’t follow up either, so I appreciate that.

Can the minister advise when PavCo will begin seeing the $3 million payments from Paragon to PavCo?

[1800]

Hon. T. Stone: The Paragon development which the member is referencing here in terms of the context of his question, the $3 million payments…. The development is expected to be complete by spring of 2017. It would be at that point that the annual payment of $3 million from Paragon to PavCo would begin. We expect to receive the first $3 million payment from Paragon shortly after development concludes in spring of 2017.

D. Eby: Then, I take it that the agreement between the coalition of groups, including Paragon and PavCo, is such that no payments are made until the facility is actually open and running. Is that correct? Or is it a fixed date of spring 2017, open or not?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. Once the development is complete — the lights are on, the doors are open, and the operation is open for business — then at that point the first payment for $3 million per year will be forthcoming to PavCo.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise whether PavCo owns and leases the Central Heating property on Beatty Street? If so, what is it collecting currently, annually, for the lease of the property, and how much longer is the lease in place?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no.

D. Eby: Does PavCo use the services of Central Heating for heating the facility?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, that is one of PavCo’s heat sources.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise how much PavCo pays to Central Heating on an annual basis?

[1805]

Hon. T. Stone: As per the member’s previous questions in regards to the expenses related to the roof maintenance of B.C. Place, similarly, with respect to utilities costs, including expenses relating to central heating, those are contained within that global operations number
[ Page 7808 ]
which I’d mentioned in a previous response.

Again, as I said previously, we’d be happy to provide the member with a more fulsome breakdown of that operations number, including a breakdown of the utilities.

D. Eby: On page 12 of the service plan PavCo expresses that they have changed the methodology for measuring employee retention. When I look at the numbers it looks like they’ve just dropped the percentage of employees that they expect to retain by 10 percent.

Can the minister explain what’s happening here?

[1810]

Hon. T. Stone: The member is correct in pointing out that in the previous service plan the employee retention numbers were more in the low 80 percent range in terms of the targets. The management of PavCo made the decision for the current service plan to change their methodology and to lower their targets to what they believe now to be much more realistic and acceptable targets for the type of industry that they’re in.

Frankly, it’s very difficult to find an industry comparator out there, when you talk to HR experts, for example, on what is a highly desirable retention rate for this type of industry, which is very seasonal, very casual — a lot of part-time workers. As a former business person myself, a 72 percent retention rate for this kind of a business, I think, is pretty darn good. In that low 70 percent range is roughly where PavCo has been tracking for a good number of years.

I think, at the end of the day, really what you’re seeing here is a decision taken by management to reflect much more achievable and reflective employee retention targets that are more in line with the type of business that PavCo is in.

D. Eby: How much of the $9 million subsidy that PavCo receives directly from government goes towards the operation of the convention centre?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the $9 million annual grant that is provided from the province of British Columbia to PavCo, I can report that for the last couple of fiscal years the amount that was actually dedicated to flow through to the Vancouver Convention Centre is very nominal. The really good news is that the Vancouver Convention Centre is now break-even. Certainly, for this fiscal year we’re not anticipating any of the $9 million to have to be directed towards the Vancouver Convention Centre.

[1815]

Not trying to grandstand here, but I think, just for the record, it’s unheard of in North America for publicly owned convention centres to be break-even. You’d be hard-pressed to find enough convention centres in that context to count on one hand that are actually break-even.

A testament to, a shout-out for the folks at PavCo and the hard-working men and women who make that place run. They’ve done an outstanding job, particularly on the Vancouver Convention Centre side of things, attracting world-class events. Being completely forthright, we’re extremely optimistic about the future on the convention centre side of PavCo’s businesses as well.

D. Eby: My final question — we have time for one — to the minister. The $1.25 million increase in expenses for staff. Can the minister explain the source of that?

Then we’re all wrapped up here. Minister, just so you know, that is the end of these estimates.

Hon. T. Stone: In response to the member’s question, that projected increase in expense for staff actually relates to a couple of things. First off, there is actually a projected increase in total revenue from $108 million, roughly, to $112 million. Part of the increase in staffing costs is reflective of the increase in revenue, which means more events requires a bit more staff. There’s a little bit there.

Secondly, there are some union increases for staff at B.C. Place. Last but not least, there are actually quite a number of vacancies at the moment that may need to be filled, may not need to be filled. They’ve allocated some dollars towards filling those vacancies.

I would like to also say that PavCo has been prudent about making absolutely certain that a position they’ve indicated that they’ve provided for, insofar as it’s a vacancy that they’re looking to fill, is actually a position that’s really, truly needed at PavCo. So they’ve been very picky, very choosey about filling vacancies, but making sure that should they identify a vacancy that they wish to fill, they actually have the budget in order to do that.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $813,473,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report resolution of vote 31 of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and vote 43 of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada