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)

Monday, May 4, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 3

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

MONDAY, MAY 4, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

RECOGNITION, RESPECT AND
RECONCILIATION

S. Fraser: Respect, recognition and reconciliation. It is vitally important that government take seriously their role in a government-to-government relationship with First Nations in British Columbia.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is not merely about symbolic gestures or photo ops. This is not merely about one-off, short-term economic deals to gain access to resources. This is about certainty on the land base and jobs and economic certainty. This is about the spirit and intent of multiple court decisions. This is about our collective futures. This is about justice.

The Tsilhqot’in decision was a landmark legal clarification that rights — but not just rights — and First Nation title do exist in the province of British Columbia. The problem is that this Liberal government, after many years of fighting the Tsilhqot’in in the courts, refuses to apply it.

There has been no meaningful response to the decision, except in the narrowest of terms in dealing directly with the Tsilhqot’in. But the spirit and intent and the words of the ruling, and previous rulings by courts, are simply being ignored.

Of course, this is the same MO that followed Canada finally signing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Both Prime Minister Harper and this Liberal government, provincially, simply ignored it…

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s keep the statements non-partisan, please.

S. Fraser: Thank you.

…and nothing changed in policy, in attitude — nothing. Let me give a few examples of what not to do if you are truly a government looking for reconciliation, justice or certainty on the land base and in the economy.

[1005]

The government, early on in their term, changed the terms of the environmental assessment process. This was an affront to First Nations in the province, and it took away many of the significant roles of First Nations in deciding what happens on the land base. This is the opposite of respect and of recognition of First Nations and their territories.

The Premier pretty much demonstrated what not to do in the beginning of her term. One of her first significant actions as Premier was to try to convince the Prime Minister to overturn the federal environmental assessment that denied the Taseko mine proposal in the middle of Tsilhqot’in territory. Despite a landmark court decision — and as the Speaker knows, 25 years in the courts for the Tsilhqot’in — the Premier acted as though the Tsilhqot’in did not exist, that the court case did not exist. Again, we’re lacking respect and recognition — and certainly no reconciliation.

Fast forward to this year. This was raised in question period. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations issued grizzly hunting permits within the Tsilhqot’in territory — the Tsilhqot’in, who’d just had the landmark court decision. They fully tripled the number of those licences, but no adequate consultation — what not to do if you’re trying to demonstrate respect and recognition.

We’ve just witnessed a week-long occupation of the Premier’s office in West Kelowna involving all five Nicola Valley chiefs. Why do we think that was? The government issued permits to import sewer sludge into the Nicola Valley to be dumped on the land — again, with not adequate consultation, no respect, no recognition. While the chiefs agreed to leave the Premier’s office, there has been certainly no reconciliation.

We’ve recently seen the ultimate in failing to consult. As we all know in this House — and it’s been raised numerous times — the treaty partners represented by the First Nations Summit and, for that matter, their federal partners as well were blindsided by a decision made by this government. They cancelled the appointment of the new treaty commissioner literally days before he was to begin his work. And this was done unilaterally — again, unilateral action in a tripartite process, tripartite agreement. It’s the polar opposite of respect and recognition and certainly reconciliation.

The explanation for that was that the treaty process was taking too long and that the province was going to head in another direction. But there are partners — treaty partners, legal partners. To suggest that the province is heading in another direction without speaking to those partners does not show respect, does not show recognition and is in no way conducive to reconciliation.

One of the most difficult actions of this government that I’ve seen — for me, difficult — is in dealing with the missing and murdered women on Highway 16, the Highway of Tears, so aptly named — so many women murdered and disappeared. Despite repeated, independent and solicited recommendations, this government has
[ Page 7938 ]
refused to heed those, so not even a safe bus for transportation.

Now, we have been cited internationally by the UN for this glaring inaction, and to make it worse, this government stripped away major funding from the RCMP investigation, the E-PANA investigation, making it nearly impossible to continue with any of the historic investigation work on that highway. That’s according to the senior RCMP officer involved. If you want to show complete lack of respect and a complete failure of recognition of the desperate situation of aboriginal women that they face every day on Highway 16, it’s being demonstrated clearly here.

Now, it’s going on eight months since the all-chiefs meeting. That was last September 11. The Premier seemed to say some of the right words when she left the meeting, talking about the opportunities that lay before us following the Tsilhqot’in landmark decision, a decision that recognized that title does exist in the province, not just for the Tsilhqot’in but for all First Nations whose occupation and use of the land predate European contact.

[1010]

But the Premier’s words are not reflected in action. I’ve started a list already. There’s an endless list of….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Take your seat.

M. Morris: Just listening to the member opposite, focusing on a lot of the historic and negative aspects of the relationship that we’ve had over time in British Columbia, I am here to say that we have seen some significant changes right across this province, particularly over the last ten years. More recently we talk about the Tsilhqot’in decision.

The Tsilhqot’in decision has fundamentally helped change the atmosphere in British Columbia and the way we negotiate with First Nations across the province. Yeah, the Tsilhqot’in decision has recognized aboriginal title. It has laid down some basic guidelines on how that’s determined.

The province is working with every band, every First Nation — 203 First Nations groups in the province — to see how they fit into the guidelines that were set forth by the Tsilhqot’in decision. We’re working very hard with that. In addition to that, we’ve done a lot with respect to reconciliation.

The province has entered into hundreds of various types of economic and community development agreements with First Nations throughout the province. I look at mining for an example. A recent example is with the Tahltan people up in the northwest corner of British Columbia, where the band voted 87 percent in favour of an agreement with Imperial Metals.

You know, that speaks volumes to the progress that we have made, that industry has made and the First Nations have made right across this province. I look at other local agreements within my own riding where the McLeod Lake Indian Band has agreements with Imperial Metals with the new mine that was opened up just north of Mackenzie, Mount Milligan.

They’ve got signed forestry agreements in the area, so they’ve got access to fibre. They supply their own mill that they’ve just purchased and built in Mackenzie. They also supply logging contracting services to all of the forest service companies up in that area.

McLeod Lake has gone ahead leaps and bounds. They recognize the value of economic development. They recognize the value of cooperation with the provincial government and with industry. Their community shows that. They’ve done a lot of work in the community that’s raised the level within the community for the social experiences that they have there.

We’re seeing that all over the province. We’re seeing that north to south and from our coast right through to the Alberta border with the various projects that we have. The LNG industry that’s going to hit this province here shortly is going to be an economic changer for a lot of the First Nations communities right along the route of the pipelines, in the northwest coastal area where these large plants are going to be built.

We’ve just heard recently in the newspaper where the First Nations communities have been offered a significant sum of money from industry in order to mitigate some of the economic situations that they have in those communities.

We’re seeing employment levels raising significantly right across the province. In all First Nations communities we’ve got opportunities with our jobs plan to train First Nations, to make sure that they’re prepared and ready to get the jobs — a number of jobs, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we’re going to have right across this province. Those are going to benefit First Nations in every corner of this great province of ours.

It’s going to significantly increase the social aspects of their community so that the education and the living conditions are much better than they have been in the past.

I see nothing but positive things occurring. This government is working very well with First Nations; First Nations are working very well with this government.

Are there going to be bumps along the road? Yes, there will be. But overall, we’re working very hard collectively with First Nations, with the other municipalities in British Columbia and with industry to make sure that First Nations have an opportunity to share the economic benefits — as well as raising the social fabric in those communities.

S. Fraser: I don’t disagree that short-term or one-off economic agreements don’t have their place. They are no replacement for the concepts of respect, recognition and reconciliation.
[ Page 7939 ]

[1015]

I would note that there’s a large amount of litigation still occurring in this province. There’s more money being spent on actual court costs than there is in the treaty process. Respect, recognition, and reconciliation.

As spokesperson for the official opposition on aboriginal relations, I would like to provide a bit of guidance to government that seems somewhat oblivious to these words. These words are more than just words. They’re principles. I believe I demonstrated just a few of the failures, in my opinion of this Premier and this government in their tenuous relationship with First Nations.

Here’s what should happen. Recognize that title does exist in this province. Move beyond the courts and into a real relationship based on respect and recognition of that fact. Open up the environmental assessment process to ensure that First Nations in this province once again have a real input into what happens on the land in their territories to bring certainty and sustainability and credibility back to that process.

The Highway of Tears. Treat aboriginal women with the respect that they deserve. Follow and implement multiple recommendations to ensure that women in the north that live and travel along Highway 16 on that corridor can do so safely. Make sure that the RCMP have the resources that they require to bring final closure to that vital investigation. Provide a bus on Highway 16.

The treaty process. Amend the treaty process, certainly, by showing some respect to the treaty partners. Heed the advice of the treaty commissioners. Evolve the process, yes. Look at the mandate. It hasn’t changed in 23 years. It does not adequately reflect court decisions, case law or international declarations.

To those nations inside or outside of the treaty process, don’t have an All Chiefs meeting and subsequently ignore all of the key resolutions that came from those chiefs. They came there to work. They came with key points designed to move the relationship forward, and the government — the Premier, her cabinet — came for photo ops. They have no follow-up on those key issues.

I would further recommend that this government empower the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The committee has been named every year. I have been here for ten years. It has never met, despite many of these great problems that I have cited. Where was the new relationship? Let’s bring back respect, recognition leading to reconciliation.

INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR
B.C.’S FISCAL MANAGEMENT

J. Yap: I am addressing a subject today that can hold a significant sway over a government’s finances, and that’s credit ratings. It’s a subject that does not necessarily receive much attention. But let’s make no mistake — it has an effect on every single person in the province.

All of us should be familiar with our own personal credit score. It’s something we all have. Every time someone wants to finance a car, get a mortgage or apply for a credit card, we have to fill out a form. The information in the form, such as income, employment history, along with our assets and debts, make up our personal credit score.

This is done to ensure that credit unions, banks and companies are able to make informed decisions about to whom they should lend their money and to whom they should not. The better the personal credit score, the easier it is to get that loan. Normally this is also reflected in a lower rate of interest.

Companies have to assume a high level of risk when they make loans. They would not last too long if they lent their money — which is by extension the money of their shareholders, their investors, their customers — to those who have no intention or ability to pay it back, of course, with some interest. It comes down to plain old common sense. Would anyone, anyone here, lend money to someone you know who has a high likelihood of not paying it back? I’m thinking most of us would think twice about this prospect.

Governments are quite like individuals or couples who take out mortgages, or companies or entrepreneurs who seek a loan to expand their operations. Governments have to borrow money to build things that the public needs, such as hospitals, roads, bridges and public transit.

[1020]

Governments have to seek out those willing to invest, and if a government is considered a poor risk, the more difficult it is to raise money with a favourable rate of interest. I think all of us have personal credit cards. If we do not pay the balance fast enough, we have to incur interest charges on top of the principal amount borrowed, and if the credit card has a high rate of interest, the more we have to pay back.

For governments, income comes from sources such as taxes, natural resource royalties and, in some cases, revenues from interests such as lottery or liquor sales. If governments do not have enough revenue on hand to pay for daily operations like health care, education, social services and the salaries of public servants, they’re in trouble and have to run a deficit and borrow just to make ends meet.

As we know, this is not advisable. Operating deficits are never a good idea. This is why our government has made it a priority to control spending and balance the budget, and we have accomplished this now for three consecutive years.

Let’s be frank. Governments have limited sources of income. There is no magical money tree or pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but there’s always a demand and a need to invest.

Invest in infrastructure — infrastructure such as the new southbound off-ramp at the Leigh Road interchange
[ Page 7940 ]
on Highway 1 in Victoria just announced this morning; infrastructure like the new Evergreen line, serving those who live in Coquitlam and Burnaby; infrastructure like the new St. Paul’s Hospital campus that will be built in Vancouver.

The cost of long-term financing for government-backed infrastructure depends a great deal on the level of confidence that financial institutions have that the borrower will pay back the money. Another term for this is “credit-worthiness.” Thankfully for the taxpayers of British Columbia, our province has been deemed more credit-worthy than most others in Canada.

Since November 2004 British Columbia has received seven credit rating increases. Our province maintains the highest credit rating possible with Moody’s, Standards and Poor’s and Fitch. Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed our province’s triple-A credit rating last May. Moody’s affirmed its triple-A rating in March and upgraded B.C.’s outlook to stable. Dominion Bond Rating Service affirmed B.C.’s double-A high rating a couple of weeks ago. Last Wednesday Fitch ratings affirmed B.C.’s triple-A credit rating and long-term outlook as stable, saying that our rating reflects prudent fiscal management and a stable fiscal performance.

Let’s just say that British Columbia is in pretty rare company. Only the federal government of Canada, and Alberta, for now, are on equal footing. B.C. has not earned these strong credit ratings by chance. This has happened as a direct result of exercising fiscal prudence. To quote last week’s Fitch credit report: “British Columbia’s triple-A rating primarily reflects conservative financial management practices resulting in stable fiscal performance and a well-managed liability profile.”

Our positive credit ratings are a clear signal that British Columbia is an advantageous place to invest. It also lowers our province’s borrowing costs, so government can continue to invest record amounts in services, programs and infrastructure for British Columbians.

This includes the new B.C. early childhood tax credit, which approximately 180,000 families started to receive last month. This includes a $3 billion increase in Ministry of Health spending over three years. This includes a funding boost to kindergarten-to-grade-12 education of $564 million over three years, as this government meets its funding commitments under collective agreements negotiated in this sector, including a 33 percent increase to the learning improvement fund, bringing it to $100 million per year, and $10.7 billion in new capital projects over the coming three years.

[1025]

All of this is done, in large part, due to a strong credit rating earned as a result of fiscal prudence.

C. James: Thank you to the member for Richmond-Steveston for his comments on international recognition of B.C.’s fiscal management. While I appreciate the member’s comments related to international credit rating…. I acknowledge that we live in a global economy. There is no question that we are all impacted by outside forces, good and bad, and that fiscal management is critically important. There is no question. It does involve things like outside credit ratings.

I would also suggest that fiscal management and recognition of B.C.’s fiscal management involves more than simply international credit ratings. It also involves things like GDP, things like job growth, things like wise spending of dollars. It also impacts…. I would suggest that, most importantly, the impacts for people right here at home in British Columbia are the reality for B.C. families, for workers, for jobs and for business. I want to talk just for the couple of minutes that I have about the wise spending of resources. I heard the member talk about government controlling spending. I believe it’s important when you’re talking about the strength of British Columbia to talk about what that reality means for B.C. families.

What about spending tax dollars wisely? Let’s just look at a couple of statistics around the reality for hard-working British Columbians, a couple of stats that I think are critical to make sure that we talk about in this discussion and this debate.

British Columbians, in fact, right now, are carrying the highest debt load in the country, right here in our province. That is something that is very concerning. I heard the member talk about the fact that we all need to be aware of our own personal credit rating. Well, personal credit ratings are a real challenge here in British Columbia.

We also see the median wage dropping. In fact, British Columbia is the only province where we saw the median wage drop. So families are not only carrying huge debt loads. The reason they’re carrying huge debt loads is because they’re struggling, because the median wage is dropping.

Why might that be? Well, it has a lot to do with the additional pressures and costs that families are having to take on. We have seen, over the last number of years, everything from MSP premiums to hydro rates to tuition fees to ferry fares all climbing for families. We’re seeing huge pressures that families are stuck with and having to try and manage and not getting by.

The member also raised the issue of the wise spending of tax dollars and sound fiscal management. Again, I just want to put a few examples on the table in this discussion that we’re having this morning. Auditor General for Local Government — $5 million that could have been spent in another way. B.C. Hydro. Well, there’s an example where we’ve seen a budget for the northern transmission line — $395 million. Final approval — $716 million. While I think it is important to spend tax dollars wisely, I would suggest that that, in fact, has not been a fact when it comes to looking at the record of this government.
[ Page 7941 ]

While the member refers to international recognition, I think the members across the other side also need to be looking at the reality for B.C. families, for hard-working families, who also deserve recognition, who also deserve attention, who also deserve support and haven’t been seeing that.

Cost overruns, increased pressure, money wasted — those are realities that I think are important to put on the table when we’re talking about the fiscal management of British Columbia. The difficult part of all of those issues is that those issues then impact families when money isn’t spent wisely, when you do see cost overruns, when you see waste, as we’ve seen with this government.

Land sales are another example, where we saw $43 million left on the table on the land sale that could have been used for things like education, health care, supports in British Columbia. Those kinds of wastes of dollars, in fact, don’t provide the kind of fiscal management that, as the member had said, is important and that I also believe is important.

[1030]

It’s not simply looking at outside credit ratings. It’s also making sure you look at the reality for people in this province, the employment numbers, the struggles around median wages, the difficulty for personal credit ratings that families are facing because of the debt that they’re carrying and the wasting of dollars. Those are very important issues that I believe haven’t always been considered and certainly aren’t being considered in this direction.

J. Yap: I’d like to thank the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill for her remarks. It’s good, I guess, that at least that party is talking about the importance of fiscal prudence. In fact, I heard her say: “Fiscal management is critically important.” So on that we can agree.

According to a quote from Michael Yake, the vice-president of Moody’s, in a March news release from the agency: “The stable outlook on the province of British Columbia’s ratings reflects our opinion that the province has presented a credible plan of consistent balanced budgets with little risk that the debt burden will exceed current forecasts.”

Now, that is in stark contrast to the NDP’s record when they seized power in the ’90s. I’d be amiss not to remind those of us here that British Columbia was harmed through multiple consecutive credit downgrades in the 1990s.

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep your statement non-partisan, please.

J. Yap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was during a time of boom across the rest of the country. British Columbians were rewarded with eight consecutive budget deficits, and we suffered the indignity of becoming a have-not province. A Standard and Poor’s analyst remarked in 1999: “What we have seen in B.C. is a gradual erosion in the financial strength of the province during the 1990s. When the economy was doing well, the budget was never balanced. Now that the economy has slowed down, it makes it all the more difficult.”

Now, the optimism in me, as an optimist, would like to think that this is now ancient history and that my colleagues on the left have learnt their mistakes. Let’s hope this is the case. However, recent events have reminded us that the world’s economy is still very volatile. Last week Moody’s downgraded Greece’s credit rating into junk territory as that country prepares to default on payments. Depending on oil prices and how tomorrow’s election goes, our neighbour to the east could be staring down a similar abyss.

History does have a habit of repeating itself. So I’d like to conclude by quoting Benjamin Franklin, who wrote in his 1758 Poor Richard’s Almanack: “Creditors have better memories than debtors.” This is why we need to maintain B.C.’s strong credit ratings, which we have fought so hard to earn.

Hon. B. Bennett: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d like to introduce two friends of mine today up in the gallery: Jennifer and Halie Osmar. Jennifer was my constituency assistant for four years and also my campaign manager in 2013 — the main reason why we were so successful. Halie just came out of second year university in Calgary. She’s studying politics, actually, and economics. They’re here to just enjoy the debate this morning. So help me make them welcome.

Private Members’ Statements

PUTTING AN END TO FEE GOUGING

J. Shin: It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise in the House to make a private member’s statement on putting an end to fee gouging.

By capping foreign money transfer fees and improving the standards of business practices by the vendors, we can protect British Columbians from predatory fees applied to international money transfers, also known as remittances. Remittances are big business. In Canada international remittances amount to roughly $24 billion a year, more than five times the amount of international aid that the country provides as a whole.

A great number of British Columbians and migrant workers send their hard-earned dollars to help their loved ones living abroad, most commonly to coun-
[ Page 7942 ]
tries like the U.S., the U.K., France as well as India, the Philippines and China, dispelling the popular notion that remittances are exclusive to developing countries. These money transfers are also the means for sending emergency cash to family and friends travelling abroad, for providing regular support for children studying in other countries, for direct individual-to-individual relief as international aid during natural disasters and for other charitable causes.

[1035]

In order to send money, remitters in Canada generally need to rely on specialized money transfer agencies. Processing remittances is a highly profitable business for companies such as Western Union, MoneyGram and others.

With globalization and technological advancement, it is now easier than ever before to send money abroad. However, some money transfer companies are charging large and often hidden fees to British Columbians for handling their remittances. With no regulations in place in B.C. currently on the rates nor the disclosure standard, thousands are getting gouged by companies charging exorbitant fees for this service every year.

Many senders are low- to middle-income individuals who remit small sums and often — such as $200 monthly — as opposed to any big, one-time amount. British Columbians are sending money abroad, paying a flat fee of $12 to $20 per transaction — or even more — be it $100 or $200 that they’re sending. This means that for most transactions, fees range from 7.5 percent to 12 percent of the transfer amount, and this doesn’t even include the additional and often undisclosed conversion fees for currency exchange, which are estimated by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, to add another 4 to 6 percent.

There’s a gross lack of transparency in fee-disclosure practice in this industry that’ll continue to prey on remitters without a legislative regulation in place. Even with the suggested government website for rate comparison — if one would even know where that is and how to find it — the challenge would still remain for many senders, with limited capacity to make an informed choice on the vendor as the posted transfer fees and the currency exchange rates vary greatly from agency to agency and day to day. Presently in B.C. the fees being charged average 15 percent of the total amount transferred, and they can go as high as 20 percent — far higher than the fees that we see in other countries like the U.K., Spain, Italy, Russia, Malaysia and even just south of the border in the U.S.

As Dr. Pamela Stern, an anthropologist at SFU, puts it, “This is a regressive and even punitive expense for someone earning the average rate of pay in Canada” and for immigrants especially, who typically earn less than non-immigrant Canadians.

Every year 20,000 workers from Mexico and the Caribbean make their journey to work in Canada’s agriculture sector, largely in British Columbia. Many of them are left to find their own ways to remit money without any assistance from the government that has brought them here.

I quote Kay Bisnath and Pascal Apuwa from ACORN that our governments “can no longer afford to be apathetic towards the plight of migrant workers’ remittances.” The senders who shared their stories with the student researchers at SFU explained why they remit and how their families abroad use that money. Immigrant remittances are sent for the very same reasons and are used in the exact same ways as non-immigrant Canadians spend their money on their kin: tuition for a child’s education, a loan to help a sibling start a business, support for aging parents, skilled nursing care for their ailing grandparent.

This is not only a fairness issue for all Canadians and immigrants and non-immigrants as well as migrant workers, but it is also a social justice issue. They want to provide the same kind of familial support that is common to all of us, whether our loved ones live in Canada or abroad. It is wrong that they must pay a premium, and a hefty one at that, to share their money with their loved ones.

Even the U.S. enacted consumer protection legislation requiring exactly the kind of disclosure standards that we need in Canada. Yet despite the continual demands made to our governments to regulate money transfer organizations and cap the fees, only a limp promise thus far exists that there will be perhaps more disclosure.

I’m joined by the Ontario NDP MPP Jagmeet Singh and federal NDP MP Peggy Nash, who are also calling for remittance regulation in their respective jurisdictions with Bill 88 and Bill C-665. We are not alone in our campaign as our community organizations, academia and British Columbians call on our governments for action. It’s time that we align British Columbia with international standards that are recommended by the World Bank, which state that a maximum of 5 percent of the total money transferred be charged for providing the service.

By regulating these predatory fees to a maximum of 5 percent and increasing transparency, we can protect British Columbians from fee gouging and help them see more funds make it to the hands of their loved ones.

[1040]

D. Ashton: Thanks to the hon. member from the opposite side for what I know is a real and a personal concern for this issue.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines remittance as a transmittal of money as to a distant place. We have in British Columbia thousands of workers who send portions of their paycheques overseas to family members in countries such as the Philippines and India. Institutions that process these money transfers, of course, charge the sender a fee — that remittance fee.

Money transfers and remittances are an important
[ Page 7943 ]
way for new Canadians to support their family members overseas. Once new immigrants arrive in Canada, they send more than $23 billion a year back to their home countries, according to the World Bank estimates from 2014.

We want to ensure that consumers are well informed and protected. The topic of regulating international money transfer fees is complex, and the changes would involve a number of groups, including other provinces and the federal government, as was mentioned by the hon. member. The federal government signed an international pledge to help reduce the cost of remittances at the 2011 G20 meeting, and the numbers have come down since then.

According to the Toronto Star, at the G20 summit Bill Gates stated: “If the transaction costs on remittances worldwide were cut from where they are today at around 10 percent to an average of 5 percent, this would unlock $15 billion a year to those poorer countries.” In response, G20 leaders agreed to work to reduce the global average costs of transferring remittances from 10 percent to 5 percent by 2014. Since then, collaboration between the concerted efforts of the G20 members and operators and recipients has resulted in a decrease of the G20 average, down to approximately 7.98 percent — its lowest level yet.

The G20 is also taking a collective country-led action. In response to the G20 call on action remittances, members have committed to implement a domestic or international action committee to help reduce the costs of transferring these remittances. The federal government’s economic action plan of 2015 proposes to make targeted investments to help reduce the costs of sending these remittances from Canada.

Remittances represent an important source of income for these families in the developing world and can help pay for the essential needs that they have, whether it be nutrition, education or, specifically, health care.

The federal government’s economic action plan of 2015 proposes an additional $6 million over five years, starting in 2015-16, to introduce measures to help ensure Canadians have access to safe, reliable and low-cost remittance service when sending money to families and friends in the developing countries. This includes establishing a remittance price comparison website that will increase the transparency of providing information on fees and charges across the service providers, allowing the users to have informed decisions.

In addition, through Statistics Canada and the department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, the federal government will take further steps to gather data on remittance flows from Canada to better understand the needs of the Canadian remitters. The federal government will also work with financial institutions to evaluate possible collaboration opportunities to expand the access to the low-cost remittance services.

As we know, Canada was founded on immigration. With one million job openings by 2022, immigrants are a key source for our growing labour demands in the market. Immigration plays an important role in B.C.’s growing economy, and we look forward to working with our partners in the federal government on this and other issues that will be incredibly important to the new Canadians.

J. Shin: I would like to thank the member opposite, for Penticton, for his comments — very thoughtful statistics. Thank you for sharing.

Further to my remarks earlier, I would like to elaborate more on the common perception that remittances are a form of international development aid or that they might be a net drain on the host economy or that they are only done by immigrants or migrant workers, because this is some dangerous stereotyping that is false.

The sender has done work to earn and pay taxes on that income, which is then up to the individual to spend however and wherever, which is no different than buying imported goods or vacationing abroad with domestic dollars that are leaving the country. Money is sent not only by immigrants and migrant workers to support loved ones in countries of their origin but also by Canadians as a means to provide regular support and allowance for children studying abroad, for emergency relief to family and friends travelling elsewhere as well as individual-to-individual help during times of natural disaster, like the one that we saw in Nepal.

[1045]

One may claim against regulating this industry by stating that remittance rates have come down steadily over the past decade as a result of growing competition, operation efficiencies and new product options. But the fact of the matter is, frankly, it’s not low enough.

The rates we have in Canada still far exceed those seen in other countries and are almost double that which has been recommended by the World Bank, which is an institution known for being a free enterprise promoter. Even they see the merit for capping the fees at 5 percent here. So this isn’t some socialist ideal. This is a financially conservative approach to business consumer protection.

It’s also necessary to take into account that letting the market play out is simply not feasible, with many countries making deals that exclude all but MoneyGram and Western Union, the global giants of the money transfer industry that continue to monopolize the industry and limit competition.

One might also argue that the access to rural areas and convenience, speed and reliability offered justify the costs. But for companies like Money Mart — with $1.6 billion in assets, posting $480 million in net income in 2012 — or Western Union, with net income of $798 million in 2013 and over $1 billion in 2012, the level of fee gouging that we see in British Columbia is just unacceptable, especially against the low-wage workers.
[ Page 7944 ]

This is not just a federal issue, and governments should not be passing the buck. Business consumer protection is a provincial responsibility. There is no moral or political justification for inaction around remittance profiteering by unregulated money transfer organizations.

I will be looking for support from all members of this House for a fair fee regulation that will protect British Columbians from predatory business practices in remittance.

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
SKILLED TRADES IN B.C.’S NORTHEAST

M. Bernier: I am pleased to rise in the House today and speak about skilled trade opportunities for B.C.’s northeast region of the province.

B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint is working to re-engineer education and training so British Columbians can find their fit in our diverse, our strong and our growing economy here in British Columbia. That’s why we’re working to ensure everyone can access the skills training that’s needed here in the province.

Why are we doing that? Because we know that over the next couple of years, by 2022, there are going to be an estimated one million job openings here in the province. Those job openings are going to be for young people, older workers, aboriginals, the underemployed and those facing barriers to employment and economic independence.

Two-thirds of the job openings that we’re going to have here in the province are going to come from retirement and through attrition. The rest, though, we need to be prepared for. We need to do our job to make sure that skilled workers are trained for these openings.

In the northeast many job opportunities come from the natural resource sector, including natural gas development. I think everybody in the House would agree that the natural resource sector is really the economic engine of this province. In northern B.C., where we are, we are the heartland of natural resource development.

The northeast is going to play a very important role in the future for this province. It is already. We are one of the major economic engines and economic players here in the province. With a steady rise in employment, the province now has almost 2.3 million people employed. It’s almost the most we’ve ever had in the province of British Columbia.

What are we seeing in my region? Well, in my region, obviously, we’re a big asset to what’s going on in the province. We have an enormous supply of natural gas — almost 3,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s enough natural gas to run Canada and the world and the economies for over 150 years.

That’s why we’re doing everything we can — and it’s important to my region to do everything we can — to capitalize on LNG and what it has to offer. Right now a total of ten LNG proposals have received export approvals by the Canadian National Energy Board.

One thing about our government, though, is it’s not about the economy or the environment. It’s about both. It’s about trying to find that balance. It’s making sure that as a government we realize that the natural resource development that we are going through and what we’re trying to achieve does not come at the expense of our environment.

[1050]

The resource sector in my riding means jobs. These are family-supporting, good-paying jobs, and there’s lots of opportunity for work in northern B.C. Over the past ten years employment in the northeast has increased by 17 percent, with an increase of 21 percent in full-time employment.

This isn’t just about my region. This is about right across northern British Columbia. In fact, over the last ten years, employment in the North Coast–Nechako area has seen an increase of 22 percent in full-time employment. The unemployment rate is only 5.8 percent in the North Coast–Nechako, 4.2 percent in northeast British Columbia. Historically, we’ve had low unemployment, but we’re now at record unemployment. That’s because of all the opportunities that we have because of the resource sector and because of the investments we’re making in trades and skills training.

In the northeast we expect strong job openings over the next few years — everything from driving occupations, heavy equipment operators, finance and insurance and the electrical trades. Again, it’s not just about the northeast. This is right across the north. In the North Coast–Nechako area we’re expecting many jobs in the construction management sector, carpentry, machinery, transportation equipment, mechanics and nursing.

Right now the northeast, as I said, has the lowest unemployment rate in the province. That there, I assume and I know, will only go down once Tumbler Ridge and the great people in Tumbler Ridge get back to work with the mining industry that is suffering right now for them.

Also in northeast British Columbia we have a couple of interesting stats, and I think it bodes well with why we’re doing so well in the sectors that we’re doing. We have the youngest population across all regions. As I mentioned, we have low unemployment. Labour force participation is at the highest level in the province in my area.

As I was saying, we’re going to have about one million jobs. Seventy-eight percent of those job openings expected by 2020 will require some form of post-secondary education, and 44 percent will be in the trades and technical occupations. What does that mean? It means that we need to be aligning our skills training with the opportunities that are out there.

Since 2011 in my region our government has made significant investments in Northern Lights College to bring additional seats in training and investment in infra-
[ Page 7945 ]
structure. Since last October our government has made huge investments in the trades — over $360,000 in additional critical trades seats; $150,000 to deliver training programs; and $350,000 to purchase welding machines, bandsaws and energy-efficient training systems and solar technology capability in these systems. But again, it’s not just about northeast B.C.; this is about the entire north.

At Northwest Community College since 2011 we’ve made huge investments — $90,000 for 40 Trades Discovery program seats, over $700,000 for 166 critical trades seats. These are only some of the investments we’ve made, because it’s not about one part of the province or the other. It’s about the entire north and how we are going to capitalize on the opportunities in front of us.

The resource sector in the north has offered us the opportunity here as government to make the investments, to do what we can to make sure that the next generation and those that want to be working and need the skills to make sure that they have those ready for the trades sector are getting the skills training they need.

With that, I’d just like to say that I’m very honoured and proud of the work that we’ve done as a government, and we’re seeing the fruits of our efforts with the trades sector.

R. Austin: Thanks to the member for Peace River South for his comments. I was very glad to hear, towards the end of his comments, him recognizing that while his private member’s statement may have stated clearly that it was about the northeast, in fact, he stated quite properly that it’s actually about northern British Columbia, the place that is the source of so much of our revenue.

I couldn’t agree with him more in the sense that by having opportunities close to home, whether it be in the northeast at his college, Northern Lights, or whether it be in the northwest at all the various campuses of Northwest Community College, it is vital that we provide opportunities for local people to be able to access these jobs.

Certainly, in the northwest, probably to a greater extent than in the northeast, we have seen in the last two or three years, for big projects, a huge influx of single guys — mostly guys — coming in and living in camps. While that’s wonderful for them and wonderful for the economy down here where all the revenue comes, it doesn’t build communities. We want to see folks who live in the northwest communities being able to find jobs, maintain their families and create real communities rather than just have camps. It’s very important that we have local opportunities.

[1055]

Things have changed dramatically in the last three or four years in our economy between the northeast and northwest. You know, as forestry declined and fishing declined, we went through a really bad slump. Now we are very much linked to the huge gas deposits that have been discovered in the northeast.

It’s my hope — and I think it’s the hope of all of us in the northwest — that we get to see this gas transferred either to Kitimat or to Prince Rupert and we make use of that. Clearly, the markets for gas…. While we have 150 years sitting in the ground, we’re losing the markets rapidly, and we have to find a new one.

I’d like to just make a couple of comments around the unemployment statistics. We need to realize that when people stop looking for work, they are no longer registered as being unemployed. It’s a big misnomer to say that the unemployment in the northwest is very, very low. In fact, unfortunately — particularly in the First Nations communities, but not just those — we have massively high unemployment because in these communities they stopped looking for work years ago. I think that we need to realize that a college mustn’t just have trades programs. It needs to have ABE so that people can get back on to real life and learn what it is to go and get some skills to be able to go for these jobs.

I would say this also. When we developed our community college program, I don’t think that we ever thought it was going to be sort of BCIT north. I would hope that the college still understands it has a responsibility to also provide, beyond trades, all of those academic programs that enable our young people from small communities to access university transfer courses, because not everybody wants to go to into a trade.

There are many who want to be able to access university but recognize that by staying close to home and doing the first couple of years of their university transfer credit courses in a small environment — where you have small classes, you get to know your profs, your instructors — it is very valuable, particularly for kids who grew up in small towns. To make that transfer from a small town to UBC or to SFU or UVic — it’s a very big one.

I would hope that the colleges also understand that while we’re trying to re-engineer our education program to take advantage of the trades opportunities, let’s not forget what our community college programs were initially set up for, which was to give people in remote communities the ability to go on to post-secondary education in an environment that is welcoming and is supportive for them.

With that said, I think I would agree with most of what my colleague says. We just need to make sure that in the northwest, where we’ve gone through very hard economic times, we encourage those who have been long out of the labour market and give them the ability to get back in. That starts with adult education and then moving on through the system to be able to get the skills required. I don’t want to see a big decision made, a large LNG plant coming in and nothing but workers coming from outside the region. That doesn’t really help those of us who live in the northwest.

M. Bernier: It’s an interesting Monday morning when we’ll all sit here on both sides of the House and agree.
[ Page 7946 ]
When I look at what’s happening right now in northeast British Columbia, when I look at the youth that are right now in the school, the opportunities that they have, I wouldn’t agree more that we have to make sure that we have investments in place and opportunities to keep children and our kids close to home.

When I talked about the lowest ages in the entire province in my area, one of the things I accredit that to is the fact that we have jobs. We have opportunities. We have training locally. It used to be, ten years ago, that the kids couldn’t wait to graduate high school so they could move on to somewhere else, possibly to BCIT or UBC or into Alberta. Now we’ve got those opportunities in the north. We’ve got great success at UNBC that we have there. We have the skills-training opportunities in the colleges in the north. We talked about the ones in the member’s riding as well. We know we’re seeing some success over there, and I know he agrees, too.

Last week we celebrated one year of the skills blueprint. For those that took time to go out on the front steps of the Legislature, you would have seen and heard some amazing stories. We saw some young people who are in high school, who are working on their dual-credit programs. They’ve made choices in grades 9, 10 and 11 of what they want to do for their future. We’ve got the opportunities for them.

[1100]

It was amazing to be out on the front steps of the Legislature, to hear these stories. A young woman who used to be…. I think she was a legal assistant, a legal aide. She turned around. She said that, you know, she wants something more stable. She wanted a challenge in life. What did she do? She became a heavy-duty mechanic.

This is inspirational. It’s because of what we’ve been doing with our skills blueprint and making sure that we really identify what the job openings are to make sure people are trained for them. There is absolutely no point in training somebody for a job that doesn’t exist. That’s why we’re spending all of this time making sure that we’re looking at what the opportunities are, coming forward, and I agree.

We want to make sure, and we’ve said loud and clear, that when LNG goes forward, it’s British Columbians first, which is why we want to make sure our kids, people looking for work, First Nations — the opportunities have to be there for everybody. When we look at LNG, when we look at pipelines, that’s right across the north. Those opportunities will be there for everybody. But people need to grasp that opportunity as well. It’s going to be at their doorstep. They need to make sure they’re going to take it.

We’re doing a lot of planning to make sure, as a government, that we’re ready for what’s coming down the road. There are jobs there now. This isn’t something necessarily that’s a pipedream five years down the road. We’re seeing those investments now — billions of dollars of investment here in British Columbia and in my area — which is important and why we’re focusing on making sure that people are trained for these jobs.

When we talked about those jobs, too, we talked about the north, the hon. member opposite and myself. I think it’s important to highlight, and we say, that it’s not just about the north. This is all of British Columbia that can capitalize on this.

K. Corrigan: I seek leave to make some introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I have a number of guests. I’m very pleased they’re here for the debate on the motion that I’ll be introducing in a moment.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We have Cindy Oliver, the president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators; George Davidson, secretary-treasurer; Terri Van Steinburg, president of the Kwantlen Faculty Association; Karen Shortt, president of the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association; Lynn Carter of the Langara Faculty Association; Taryn Thomson, department head at VCC; Lynn Horvat, also from VCC; Patti Bacchus, Vancouver school board trustee; Sandra McKay, who is a member of the Downtown Eastside roundtable; Phillip Legg, executive director of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators; and VCC students John Corsiglia and Halima Yasouf.

In addition, we also have Vancouver school board adult education students Amy Collins and Walid Haouas.

As well, there is a whole list of institutions across British Columbia where faculty and students involved in adult education programs are watching the live webcast of the debate in question period at Kwantlen, Capilano and Douglas and many campuses of these various institutions as well: Vancouver Community College, Langara, the College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Okanagan College, Selkirk College, Thompson Rivers University, North Island College, Northwest Community College, Vancouver Island University and Camosun College.

Either here or through the webcasts at those many sites, I hope that everybody will make all these guests very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member. As well, on behalf of the Speaker, I would like to recognize a group of students who are from Richmond Jewish Day School and who are also currently in the gallery. May the House make them truly welcome as well.

Hon. M. Polak: I call debate on private member’s Motion 15.
[ Page 7947 ]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priority of other motions on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 15 — ADULT BASIC
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to move a motion.

[Be it resolved that this House call on the B.C. government to fully support adult basic education programs as a critical component of job readiness and training.]

Geoff Plant, in his report Campus 2020, several years ago said:

“Failure to complete high school limits job and career options and is often associated with poor life outcomes such as higher criminality, poorer health and a greater dependence on social services. It holds individuals back from realizing their potential. It holds back our collective, economic and social progress.

[1105]

“The public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education by completing high school courses.”

To its credit, the provincial government agreed, and starting in 2008, adults in this province could take courses to finish or upgrade their high school free of tuition. There was a great uptake. Thousands of British Columbians have accessed school, adult education, to improve their lives.

Adult basic education. Hard-working British Columbians who want to get better jobs and look after their families and their futures take courses to finish high school or upgrade so they can go to college or university or get further technical training. These are people who are trying to do everything that is right — I’ve heard many stories — often struggling with and juggling family commitments and work commitments but still striving hard to do better.

These courses open up a wide range of possibilities for single parents, older workers laid off from resource industries, new immigrants and many, many younger people who, for a variety of reasons, could not finish high school. Now, unfortunately, the Liberal government has reversed that policy, turned its back on that public interest and is recreating barriers to participating in education and in life.

The B.C. Liberal government has made the shortsighted and ill-advised decision to eliminate the direct funding of tuition-free upgrading programs. To use the words of the North Island College working group: “We believe this decision erodes, rather than provides, the strong economic future and greater access to the labour market for all British Columbians, and it continues to exclude our most vulnerable citizens from full participation in both educational institutions and the labour market.”

This move affects people, immigrants, whose credentials may not be recognized — people like Walid Haouas, who I introduced a few minutes ago. He’s an immigrant from Tunisia who needs to redo courses in order that he can qualify to go to BCIT to become a petroleum engineer, but he’ll have to pay for them.

Largely, women are affected — often single parents like Halima Yasouf, who stayed home to raise her children, is now a single mom and who says she wants to get an education to make her life and her children and her grandchildren’s lives better. She can’t pay $550 a course.

In a province that already has some of the highest levels of poverty and inequality in Canada, slamming the door on access to basic education is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. I know government members are going to stand up and say there are grants, but these grants are bureaucratic nightmares. Many, many will not qualify for those grants. Trying to process them is going to redirect precious and shrinking resources to staff who must process them.

They don’t help if, like Walid, you’re working full-time as a busboy, making slightly more than the cutoff but not enough to pay the rent. They don’t apply at all to the thousands taking courses through the school board.

It doesn’t help that programs are being closed. For example, the Vancouver East education centre is closing this June. In Vancouver alone these cuts are going to affect about 2,000 adults a year, and that’s repeated at boards across the province.

I would hope that, just once, the members on the other side of the aisle would throw down their caucus staff talking points, demand some answers from their colleagues and stand up and say: “This makes no sense. It is bad for people. It is bad for our province and will damage the future of this of province and damage the lives of people.”

D. Plecas: As a career-long strong supporter of adult education and as someone who has studied the field of adult education and contributed to the academic literature in that field, it gives me great pleasure to address the following motion on behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South. “Be it resolved that this House call on the B.C. government to fully support adult basic education programs as a critical component of job readiness and training.”

[1110]

I should also make it perfectly clear at the outset that anyone who wants to earn their high school diploma, no matter what their age, can receive a Dogwood certificate tuition-free in British Columbia. We want people to succeed, and providing the high quality, tuition-free education in the K-to-12 sector remains a top priority of this government. Naturally, we want highly skilled and highly
[ Page 7948 ]
adaptable people in the workforce, who are competitive and committed to lifelong learning.

The fact is British Columbia does have a world-class education system. The Conference Board of Canada confirmed this in a report last June. In that report British Columbia was ranked first among 26 different jurisdictions, including all ten provinces and 16 peer countries. We earned an A-plus grade for high school attainment. That is the highest score not only among all ten provinces in Canada. We also outranked Normandy, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and we outranked the United Kingdom. In fact, British Columbia scored third, overall, in the world. Only Japan and Finland scored ahead of us.

We are proud of B.C.’s world-class education system. Right now more than 91 percent of B.C. residents aged 25 to 64 have a high school diploma. But we know that part of building a great system and keeping it great is finding ways to improve. In 2014 the government announced it was taking responsible and necessary steps to refocus K-to-12 funding on those working towards a high school diploma. The purpose was to ensure the equitable and sustainable delivery of other upgrading courses in post-secondary and K-to-12 sectors.

The changes accomplished three things. First, it refocused K-to-12 funding on school-aged students and adults pursuing high school diplomas. Secondly, it provided greater consistency and sustainability in how we deliver adult upgrading courses in the K-to-12 and post-secondary sectors. And, third, it improves adult upgrading grants for post-secondary students to support those in need of assistance. So if you’re an adult and you’re looking to finish high school and get your diploma, nothing changes in the K-to-12 sector. Taxpayers will bear the entire cost, and students won’t be charged tuition.

If you’re an adult who has already graduated, grants are available for low-income students attending adult upgrading courses, including ESL, at public post-secondary institutions. Students who can show they’re in financial need may receive a grant to pay for unmet needs — tuition, textbooks, supplies, transportation and child care. Funding applications are available on line at StudentAid B.C. or through public post-secondary institutions.

The program and changes announced in 2014 will allow the Ministry of Education to refocus $9 million towards its primary objective. That objective is protecting and improving educational programs for school-aged students and adults who are working towards a B.C. Dogwood diploma.

R. Fleming: I don’t know what to say to the member who just spoke opposite except that he’s living in a completely different universe than the one that his government is taking the direction of this province down.

This is not about improving access to adult education in British Columbia. This is about cutting investments in people who need adult education in British Columbia and contracting the ability of communities to offer those programs. That’s what this budget is about.

We have school districts that have delivered education programs for graduated learners in B.C. for decades. They’re already facing, in this budget, a $55 million cut. So let’s leave aside the debate for a moment this morning. In absence of this regressive change that’s being made, we’d already see a contraction of adult education services by those districts because the $55 million cut, which is supposed to come from the administrative savings, is coming from adult education.

Now you add on these policy changes, and the situation gets even worse on the ground in real communities around British Columbia.

[1115]

The point I want to make this morning to the members opposite — and I hope we can persuade them — is that this is a profoundly bad decision. First of all, it’s illegitimate. The day that this was announced, December 4, 2014, was the same day that the Minister of Education signed a memorandum with every school district leader in the province of B.C., promising this: “I will only make policy decisions of significance after I have consulted with elected trustees in every part of British Columbia.”

The ink was not even dry on his signature before he ignored the document that his government committed to. Illegitimate decision. This is a perplexing decision, to say the least, if I can put it that way, in light of government’s flip-flops on adult education and literacy and numeracy in the province of B.C.

It was only in 2008 that the education guarantee that’s being torn up now, in 2015, was delivered to the people of British Columbia — by Geoff Plant, I would note, in his Campus 2020 report. Now, surely, this government still has confidence in Geoff Plant. They made him the chancellor of Emily Carr University just on Friday. So why won’t this government stand by sound recommendations that were made on the basis of a comprehensive report that he delivered to this government in 2008? Perplexing.

I can’t make sense of this decision either in light of a so-called jobs plan that this government claims to have. They’re looking at the labour development needs of this province. They’re looking at those who are excluded and vulnerable to employment, those with the highest levels of unemployment. Those are people with high school or less training — not enough in a modern, diversified economy as ours to meet the skills training needs of different industries that are hoping to take flight in this province, not enough to meet the gaps that we have that are being filled, in some cases, by temporary foreign workers. Perplexing that they would put a new barrier in for those trying to get the education to get a job to support their family.

It’s perplexing in light of the McDonald commission on trades training that was delivered to this government
[ Page 7949 ]
recently, which called for more ladders of opportunity in British Columbia, not less. It chided the Industry Training Authority for doing a bad job on recruitment to trades training, and now we have a policy change that will prevent people from getting the prerequisites to getting into a trades apprenticeship program.

It is perplexing in light of the difficulties that we have seen in Surrey recently. I would read a letter to the editor, very briefly, of a newspaper in Surrey, saying: “Just as the mayor of Surrey and the Premier of the province are trying to figure out what to do about the gang war now being waged in Newton comes the news that effective May 1” — last Friday — “Surrey will no longer make high school graduation available to adult immigrants if they’ve not completed high school education in their country of origin.” Perplexing indeed.

Now, the government has said, and the member opposite just said, that there are going to be grants available: “Nothing’s really changing.” That’s their argument. Wrong. There are 18,000 graduated learners in British Columbia. We don’t know how many thousands of those will now be excluded because of new fee barriers being brought into this government.

But we do know this. This government, apparently, with this policy change, has redefined what it means to be rich in B.C. and in Metro Vancouver. You’re now rich if you make $23,000 and are a single parent raising your kids in Metro Vancouver. And do I need to quote how much rent averages each month and other daily life expenses of one of the most expensive regions? At $11.37, 80 cents above minimum wage, you’re rich. You don’t get a grant. That’s the new policy of the B.C. Liberal government.

It’s disgraceful. A $230 million tax cut for the richest 2 percent; $11.37, and you’re rich, and you can’t get into adult basic education. It says it all.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak in support of adult basic education programs and to speak to this motion. I want to offer to this House, to begin with, a simple principle that underlies all of government spending, really, and that’s that those who need help get help.

We’re trying, in fact, to not spend money on people who don’t need help. If you don’t need health care, you don’t get health care. It’s based on need, and that principle runs through all of our social programs. Let me give you an example. Our tuition to university — the fifth lowest in the nation, but it’s not free. These services are costly.

[1120]

If people are receiving something that’s valuable, they’re expected to contribute something towards that valuable education, and where people can’t afford to do that, we have student loans. I can say that I spent about 12 or 13 years in post-secondary education myself. Except for the last two years, where I received funding, I paid for it all myself. I think that’s a perfectly acceptable way to do things.

The last time I went to school I took all of my savings, sold my car, sold my furniture, gave up my apartment, and I invested everything in that education. It was the best decision I ever made. But on a couple of occasions during my student days I needed some help, so I took out student loans. I paid them back. That’s what they’re there for. It’s based on need.

Now, we apply this principle to adult basic education. Let me explain just a few things about the system. Any adult who has not yet graduated from high school will get that education free. K to 12 is a universal benefit. Anything beyond high school will cost something, because there’s an added benefit there.

We’re talking here about a comparatively small number of people. There are 985,000 students in B.C. in total. That includes K-to-12 and post-secondary education. About 35,000 are part of adult basic education.

In the past our K-to-12 education system was providing this kind of education. But that was an extra cost to that system, and it was also beyond its mandate, because it wasn’t part of K to 12. As of May 1, we’re placing it where it ought to be: in our post-secondary education system. And we’re allowing them to charge for it, just like we charge for other post-secondary education. We’re helping our institutions to transition to the new model by giving them nearly $7 million in this one year.

I think it makes sense to place this in the post-secondary category. It’s part of our broader initiative to re-engineer education and training so that British Columbians can find their fit in the emerging workforce, which will require about a million new workers by 2022.

Even with all of this, we’re still providing the Ministry of Advanced Education with base funding for adult upgrading as part of the post-secondary institutions’ core operating grants. But as the motion points out today, there is value in adult basic education. It makes a person ready for a job, and with a job, a person can earn more, can earn what they could not earn before.

Where there’s value, the principle is that a person should contribute something toward that value. How much does it cost? It costs a maximum of $1,600 every semester, although most adults do not take a full-time course load. Even if they took a full-time course load, it would still cost 25 percent less than the weighted average tuition fees in our post-secondary system. Any increases in that tuition are capped at 2 percent.

Now, what if a person cannot afford to pay for adult basic education? We have something that’s one step better than student loans. We have adult upgrading grants to cover costs that students cannot. These are not loans. They’re not repayable. They’re grants. We were providing $5.7 million a year. This year we increased that by a third, to $7.6 million, every year in grants. This amount, as I said, unlike tuition fees, is not capped.

This is a generous system. It’s an accessible system. It’s a system that delivers value for British Columbians. It fol-
[ Page 7950 ]
lows the principle that help comes with need, and that’s something that all British Columbians can support.

J. Shin: I’m too angry to be happy to take my place in this debate, on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed, for the motion on the floor this morning. I join my colleagues on this side of the House to call on the government to fully support the adult basic education programs as a critical component of job readiness and training.

As we know, this past December the Liberal government announced that universities, colleges and the school boards begin charging tuition for adult basic education, including ESL. Now, this is just one in the latest in a string of this government’s assaults on education, after the longest shutout from schools in B.C. history, ongoing deferred maintenance issues and debilitating cuts to English-language learning programs that closed doors on over 9,000 new Canadians.

Now let’s go over the main arguments from the government, trying to justify this indefensible decision. The government’s claim one: “Graduated adults have already benefited from public K-to-12 education.” So if they want to return to school, they should pay for it.

[1125]

This ministry is well aware that out of 25,000 students getting adult upgrading courses from 28 post-secondary institutions in B.C., with another 10,000 students receiving ESL training, many of these are working at low-paying jobs to put food on the table while juggling school part-time — night schools, on weekends — so that they can move on to the post-secondary career training that they need for better jobs that’ll lift them and their family out of poverty.

If you consider the people that are turning to adult basic education in the first place, you are not talking about the richest, most well-off, educated population in B.C. We’re talking about single parents, people with disabilities, new immigrants, ones that are laid off, young adults.

The department chairs and faculty of North Island College, who work directly with students, articulate this best. “This government’s decision to eliminate the direct funding of tuition-free upgrading programs erodes rather than provides the economic future and access to the labour market, and it will be sure to exclude our most vulnerable citizens from full participation when tuition per term can be as much as $1,600.” That’s more than that some university and postgraduate programs.

Government’s claim two is that grants will address the concerns of low-income students. Many students who can’t afford the tuition will not qualify for grants that get clawed back at a pre-tax income of $23,647. We’re talking about…. Someone making $11.50 an hour is considered too rich by this government to access basic education. And the paperwork for the grant application? The complexity of that alone will deter people from applying even if they were eligible.

Government’s claim three. This is my favourite. This government claims that it apparently can’t afford to continue providing tuition-free basic education for adults without having to raise taxes. Really? This is a province with an annual operating budget of $44 billion. Of all places that they can trim the fat, it is $60 million from basic education that this government will squeeze to balance the budget.

We have a Premier who finds $750,000 for a ten-day trip to Asia. This government has money to train workers in India and open B.C. schools offshore, but they have to cut back B.C. facilities right here at home that are crumbling and moulding and turn away British Columbians right here needing training for the jobs in this province.

Money does seem to grow on trees for the Liberals to go $500 million over budget on the transmission line. There’s room in the previous budget to spend a half-billion dollars on a stadium roof for B.C. Place. Of everything that needs funding in our province, it’s the top 2 percent richest who get $230 million worth of tax breaks that nobody asked for.

How is it okay that this government tells someone making minimum wage that they’re too rich to get grants for basic education, while it tells taxpayers to cough up $2,500 for Chinese lessons for a Liberal loyalist on a $150,000 per year patronage appointment? I honestly don’t know. I’ve been here for two years, I’ve seen all sorts of things, but I honestly don’t know how the members in government can reconcile this mind-numbing absurdity and justify decisions like this over and over again.

My constituents in Burnaby-Lougheed are not blind to this government’s tyranny, and I believe that the Premier will need to answer to a growing number of British Columbians coming together to stand up and say that this is not okay. We have students, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, the president of faculty associations right here in the gallery watching us, as well as podcasts that are set up across this province at institutions, and listening to this debate.

It’s just plain wrong to milk $550 per credit out of adult basic education students. Many of them are grey-haired, already nickel-and-dimed with rate hikes, short of options. These are the people who are trying to give it all they’ve got for a shot in….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Gibson: Benjamin Franklin once said: “Genius without education is like silver in the mine.” I can’t help but…. That kind of applies today.

It’s been my privilege to be able to teach hundreds of adult learners at three universities. I also did contract teaching at Western Washington University and the Justice Institute, the Police Academy. So this is something that I take a particular interest in and that I have a passion for.

[1130]

Education and training open new vistas. It builds confidence. It inspires. It creates more career options. So I’m very happy today to support the motion: “Be it resolved that this House call on the B.C. government to fully support adult basic education programs as a critical component of job readiness and training.”

It’s a fact that more than 91 percent of B.C. residents aged 25 to 64 have a high school diploma. That’s great — the highest record in the world, top rank. It’s a very impressive track record. So I would like to highlight what the government is doing in terms of job readiness and training, because it’s all about getting people ready for those opportunities — the burgeoning opportunities that are arriving here at our doorstep as we speak.

The single-parent employment initiative, which will launch in September of this year, supports B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint aimed at improving the province’s education and training system to create a full range of training options. Currently there are 16,000 single-parent families with 26,000 children that are on income and disability assistance in B.C. We want to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to make the transition into the workforce with the skills and training they need to succeed.

The government recently announced that it is investing $24.5 million over five years under the single-parent initiative — very important. On average, 90 percent of single parents on income and disability assistance are female. Children who grow up in an income assistance family are at a greater risk, themselves, of living on low incomes. Research suggests that they may be three or more times more likely to become dependent on income assistance as an adult — tragic. Opportunities will be deprived to them, compared to children with no or limited exposure to income assistance.

That’s why we’re making significant changes to the income and disability assistance program that will help single parents secure a meaningful job by allowing them to stay on income assistance for up to 12 months while they train for a new job. This is a major program change that recognizes how challenging it is to be a single parent, especially when transitioning into the workforce.

Now, the benefits are important to note, and I’m going to basically itemize them quickly here: tuition and education costs for approved training programs that last up to 12 months for in-demand jobs, so that the individual can land right away in a good opportunity and position; transportation costs to and from school; full child care costs during training.

Upon completion of the training, single parents who are eligible for subsidy will continue to have full child care costs covered for one more year after they leave school and enter the workforce. They will also retain their health supplement coverage for a year after they leave income assistance. These include dental, optical, and premium-free MSP and PharmaCare programs.

In conclusion, the single-parent employment initiative is a forward-looking and progressive social program. As our economy moves forward we, as a government, want to ensure that no British Columbian is left behind.

Deputy Speaker: I will advise members and remind members that within the rules of the House the requirement to spend funds would not be in order for a private member’s motion.

I have so far been fairly lenient, but I would encourage members to go more broadly in their discussions than a single issue. It appears, so far this morning, that we’re having a debate on the budget, which would also not be in order, and a single issue that simply would be to restore funding would not be in order, although a discussion of that would be in order in a broader context. I would encourage members to explore the broader context, perhaps, slightly more than has been done so far.

H. Bains: I rise to support this motion put forward by my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake. I want to give a south of the Fraser perspective. There are arguments to be made all over the province, but there are some arguments that are unique to the south of the Fraser area.

Let me give you a little flavour and background: 300,000 immigrants live in the south of the Fraser region, including 30 percent of B.C.’s recent immigrants, and for almost all recent immigrants, English is not their mother tongue.

[1135]

At Kwantlen Polytechnic University 98 sections of ESL, totalling over 1,600 student spaces, will be cut with this decision. These cuts are specifically targeted at Canadian residents. At the same time, student spaces at Kwantlen Polytechnic University for international students are being maintained and increased. The promise has always been made that the international enrolment would not serve to displace Canadians, that they are meant to create opportunities, not take them away.

Kwantlen region has a higher-than-average population of people who have no knowledge of English — a total of 6 percent of all residents, compared to a provincewide average of 3.4 percent and a GVRD average 5.7 percent. When you consider that 80 percent of all future jobs will require — and these are the government numbers, and all experts agree with this — a post-secondary education degree or some credentials…. When you consider that English is probably the best tool to minimize inequality in our society, when you also consider that 40 percent of B.C.’s working-age adults lack the literacy skills needed for today’s jobs, it makes more sense to save the ABE program.

In fact, the arguments are there to actually not only save it but to expand it, because that’s where our economic future is. It makes not only good social policy, but it also makes good economic sense. When you have all
[ Page 7952 ]
these jobs that require post-secondary education credentials, then you’ve got to make it easier for our students to have the opportunity available for them to upgrade their skills so that they are the ones who would be in line for those jobs.

I must tell you. A young woman walked into my office on Friday. This is what she had to say. She said: “My passion is working with youth, women, men at risk. I want to continue my education and expand my knowledge while earning a bachelor degree in social work. The problem lies in the fact that I need to upgrade my English 12 mark to a B to get into the program. Now to upgrade it, I have to pay $550 plus a $100 book fee for a one-month, full-time basis. Where am I going to get this money?”

How will immigrants be able to afford this? The upgrading fee is a real obstacle. When there’s a lack of support from government, the youth will take an easy way out.

Then there’s another one. Ayesha Rahimyar is also one of those students who are not able to upgrade because of this fee obstacle that is placed as a result of the cancellation of this agreement. Having graduated in Pakistan 16 years ago, as a single mom she wants to get a higher education so she can better support her young family and has been taking classes at the Invergarry adult education centre. Already barely able to make ends meet each month, she simply can’t afford to pay a tuition fee.

It is those kinds of stories, I think, that I’m using so that my colleagues from south of the Fraser at least can start to further those arguments on behalf of their constituents, our constituents. Those are our future workers. They will not get the opportunity to maximize their skills. They, individually, will lose out. We as a society and a province will lose out because we don’t have the skills that they potentially can get. Those are some of the things that are really, really shocking — for government to make this decision.

When the government’s Minister of Advanced Education says that a low-income adult can apply for a grant to cover their tuition, who are they talking about as low income? Anyone under $23,000. That’s barely above the minimum wage. They consider them to be loaded with money — those making $24,000. They are able to go and afford that fee? They cannot.

We are all losing as a society. Hopefully, the government can change their minds and save the ABE program.

K. Corrigan: I seek leave to make a further introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I neglected to mention a few other wonderful guests that we have in the gallery today. We have Chris Murphy, who is the president of the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers Association; Hollie Williams, the adult education vice-president; Donna Brack, adult education local rep; and Janek Kuchmistrz — all from VESTA. I hope that the gallery will make, in addition, those guests very welcome.

[1140]

Debate Continued

S. Hamilton: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise today and speak in response to the motion put forward by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

This past week we celebrated the first anniversary of the skills-for-jobs blueprint, which is shifting education and training to match jobs that are and will be in demand in the coming years. I’m very proud of what we have accomplished with the skills-for-jobs blueprint in only one year. Job readiness is the focus of the skills-for-jobs blueprint, and in only one year the blueprint is making a difference in the lives of B.C. students, workers and employers.

We’ve refocused the Industry Training Authority, which now has 15 apprenticeship advisers throughout the province helping people complete their training and connect with employers. New on-line tools available at workbc.ca, like apprentice job match and my blueprint builder, are making it easier for British Columbians to connect with skills training and apprenticeship opportunities in their communities.

In the first year our government has delivered on its promise to provide a head start to hands-on learning, with nearly 50,000 British Columbians in 31 communities participating in Find Your Fit, an interactive event showcasing in-demand careers.

Recent announcements related to the skills-for-jobs blueprint include $30 million over three years for skills training in aboriginal communities and First Nations; code-related training at five public post-secondary institutions, supported with a $250,000 investment; $6.1 million for more than 1,400 additional and critical trades-training seats in 14 public post-secondary institutions, bringing the total blueprint investment in trades-training seats to over $13 million for nearly 3,000 seats; and $24.5 million over five years to help single parents on income assistance secure in-demand jobs.

In addition, expanding financial aid opportunities are available, including the new B.C. completion grant for graduates, the B.C. access grant for labour market priorities and the expanded B.C. loan forgiveness program.

Construction is underway on expansions to trades-training facilities at Camosun College, Okanagan College and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, with a combined value of almost $65 million. We’ve formed the labour market priorities board so government can focus skills-training funding decisions on labour market demand.
[ Page 7953 ]

I will now discuss adult basic education as it pertains to training and job readiness. There are 18 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. that deliver adult upgrading courses. Adult upgrading and post-secondary education focus on literacy, basic education or academic upgrading and employment preparation.

In 2013-14 public post-secondary institutions delivered adult upgrade courses to 25,000 students and English as a second language to about 10,000 students. Low-income adult students who can’t afford to pay will have access to grants that cover tuition and other education-related costs such as supplies, textbooks, transportation and childcare. Starting April 1, 2015, the annual budget for these grants increased by 33 percent to $7.6 million.

Adult students who have the means to do so will be expected to contribute to the costs of the upgrading needed for furthering their studies and their entry into the workforce.

Students across the province are benefiting from the new opportunities available to them through the skills-for-jobs blueprint and our upgrading initiatives for adult education. This government is working to make sure everyone has an opportunity to benefit from B.C.’s growing economy.

K. Conroy: What the member for Delta North doesn’t recognize in his stats are the thousands of students who will not be able to get into the trades training, who will not be able to access the grants that he just referred to because they make too much money. They’re too rich. They make a little more than minimum wage in this province.

I’m pleased to take my place to speak to this motion in the House from my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake. It’s interesting. A number of the Liberals have said that they’re also happy to rise to speak to it. I wondered if they read the motion, because the motion is to fully support adult basic education programs, not just the ones that meet their needs.

[1145]

I want to speak from a rural perspective on how the policies the Liberals have introduced are affecting the institutions and students in the rural parts of B.C.

Take Selkirk College, for instance, the oldest community college in the province — one that, though based in Castlegar, has campuses throughout the entire West Kootenay–Boundary region. The board sets tuition fees in February for the following year, so they already had set the fees for this fall. They have decided they will not be charging students in the fall for developmental education courses, but they will be monitoring the situation to see how this will affect the college and the other programs.

They will be interviewing students to see how a fee would affect them. They will then look at the potential charging of fees for adult basic education in either January 2016 or the fall of 2016. They had a tough time with this decision but made it based on a number of issues. Rural colleges struggle to meet the 100 percent full-time-equivalency as mandated by government policies. However, they do tend to have a full component of students in their developmental education programs.

Students come to the college to take these courses for a variety of reasons. For instance, many students graduate with the basics to achieve their Dogwood but haven’t decided what to do with their life or the age-old question: “What do I want to be when I grow up?” — a question some of us are still asking in this House, I think.

Students take a year or two to do their basic arts courses or get a job, often at minimum wage, and then realize that in order to get the degree, diploma or trade they want, they need to upgrade. They need math 12, English 12, physics 12, etc.

Trades is a very, very good example. One needs math 12 prior to starting pre-apprenticeship training programs like carpentry, electrician or to become a millwright — all trades that we desperately need in this province right now and good family-supporting jobs.

We met with the trades instructors at the campus in Nelson, and they all commented on the number of students who think that getting a trade will be an easy, quick way to get into the workforce. These are all students who are great on the tools, and then they realize they need those courses they never took in high school. The developmental education programs help those students to get the courses they need and put them on the path to ensuring they can complete the apprenticeship training and get on with becoming a much-needed journeyperson in a variety of trades.

They take those courses through the ABE at the local college prior to getting accepted into the programs of their choice. Again, as the stats show, programs at the college depend on a percentage of their full-time-equivalency students only getting there via an ABE program.

Over the years Selkirk has 15 percent to 24 percent of their full-time students coming from the developmental education classes. The college tracked those numbers. In the fall of 2014 they had over 373 students enrolled in academic upgrading and development, and 205 of them had had previous ABE at Selkirk at a percentage of 55 percent. That doesn’t include stats for students coming from other institutions.

There were stats in all of the schools. Three of them, the top ones — business, industry and trades training, university arts and sciences — all had a high percentage of their full-time students coming from the trades training. In fact, over five years there’s an average of 445 students that have completed ABE courses before they’ve gone on to get their degree, diploma or get their trades training, and the majority of those students have finished the courses that they’ve taken, unlike sometimes other students.

Now this policy is taking away the ability for students to do just that. It doesn’t provide them with the pathway to
[ Page 7954 ]
full-time learning to get a degree, diploma or their trade. So this is one of the priority areas. Developmental education is one of the government’s priority areas, and they’re taking the ability away for students to learn just that.

We have a higher unemployment rate than the provincial average. People are working at lower-paying jobs and recognize they need to upgrade to get that good family-supporting job. The college prides itself on offering these services to people in our region for over 50 years and for continuing to provide affordable, post-secondary educational opportunities. This policy will hurt them.

Selkirk, like other rural colleges across the province, provides those courses for upgrading. A number of local school districts just can’t afford to provide the upgrading. Unfortunately, people have to go to the college, and now they won’t even get that. This is a policy that is going to hurt many students in this province.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m rising to talk about the motion on government support for adult basic education programs as a critical component of job readiness and training.

[1150]

If you’re an adult and you’re looking to get your high school diploma, nothing changes in the K-12 sector. You will not be charged tuition. Improvements to upfront, non-repayable grants will support low-income students enrolling in post-secondary adult upgrading courses, including English as a second language, for those students.

Any changes to adult basic education are designed to refocus K-to-12 funding on school-age students and adults pursuing their high school degrees, provide a greater degree of consistency and sustainability in how our government is able to deliver adult upgrading courses in K-to-12 and the post-secondary sectors and to improve adult upgrading grants to support those in need of assistance to further their studies.

So this is where we’re going. It’s to target the help where the help is most needed for the individual, for the family and for the job market. Last week our government announced the one-year anniversary of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint and celebrated the progress and success on the one-year anniversary of the Find Your Fit in the province’s diverse, strong and growing economy.

The Premier announced $727,500 for a unique program that opens the doors to a career in the trades for young people. Funding is for 326 new seats in 12 public post-secondary institutions for the trades discovery program. This program offers students hands-on experience in a range of trades over ten to 12 weeks. Following the program, students who want to continue training towards a trade can enroll in a foundation program or pursue an apprenticeship directly with an employer.

The blueprint was launched a year ago to re-engineer education and training systems and involves four different ministries, including the Ministry of Jobs, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. It goes from kindergarten to post-secondary training and beyond, with one million job openings projected by 2022. Driven by retirements and economic growth, the province will need to tap into the full potential of its workforce.

In the first year, government has delivered on its promise to provide a head start to hands-on learning, with nearly 50,000 British Columbians in 31 communities participating in Find Your Fit, a youth-focused, interactive event showcasing in-demand careers. Data is being used to drive decision-making to better match education and training with workforce needs, and that has happened with 4,888 newly targeted post-secondary student spaces in 2014 and 2015.

In addition, last month we announced the single parent initiative. Here we are helping parents get the training they deserve to get off social assistance. We will pay for transportation and child care so that they can live a life that is fulfilled and filled with dignity. There are currently 1,600 single-parent families with 2,600 children that are on income and disability assistance in British Columbia.

Our government is investing $24 million over five years, which will help to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to benefit from B.C.’s strong and growing economy and transition into the workforce with skills and training that align with today’s labour market demands.

This major program change recognizes how challenging it can be for a single parent, with funding for tuition and education costs for approved training programs that can last up to 12 months for in-demand jobs, transportation costs to and from school, full child care costs during training. And once the completion of the training, single parents who are eligible for a subsidy will continue to have full child care costs covered for one year after they leave school and enter the workforce. They will also retain their health supplement coverage for a year after they leave income assistance. This includes dental, optical, premium-free Ministry of Health MSP and PharmaCare programs.

These two programs I have just highlighted demonstrate government’s goals to target funding to those who need it most and to enable those individuals who want and are able to work to get a job and be contributing members to society, and to society as a whole, to fill the growing numbers of jobs that will become available for British Columbians.

S. Simpson: In British Columbia we have some of the highest levels of inequality anywhere in this country. In British Columbia we have over half a million of our residents, our citizens, who live in poverty in this province.

[1155]

Now we have a government that has rejected and refused to bring a poverty reduction strategy in, unlike
[ Page 7955 ]
every other province in the country that has done that. What they’ve said instead is that their notion for a poverty reduction strategy is a job. Fair enough.

However, we know the job market is flat. We know wages are flat. And we know people are struggling to find those elusive good-paying jobs this government talks about. Of the half a million people who live in poverty, half those families have a full-time paycheque coming into that household, but it’s a paycheque that does not deliver a standard of living that they’re looking for. It doesn’t make things work for that family. You have people in those families who want to upgrade, who want to improve their skills, who want to bring in a bigger paycheque.

The hypocrisy of what this government says with this decision, the contradiction, is that all of a sudden it’s going to cost you up to $1,600 a semester to get the adult basic education you require to upgrade, to get into many of those programs that Liberal members have been talking about in this debate — about skills training, about the blueprint, all programs that require levels of skill set that…. Many people will have got a Dogwood but will not have achieved that, will not have completed those courses. They’re now being told $1,600.

Now, we’re told that there’s a grant here to help people out. Well, let’s be clear about that grant. If you’re a single person and you make $12 an hour, you start losing your grant. You’re losing your grant. You lose it somewhere at about $11.75 an hour if you’ve got a full-time job. This is not about moving people forward. This is not about that success. What the government has done here in terms of putting these tuition fees in place has created a major impediment.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

They have said to thousands of people, “You’re stuck in that job that you have, and there is no room for you,” because these people don’t have those thousands of dollars to support moving ahead. The government isn’t supporting them, and the grant program isn’t going to work for an awful lot of people.

We can go back to 2007, when ministers of this government were crowing about the fact that ABE was free. They were crowing about the fact that that would accomplish many objectives to give people the skill set, the fundamentals, to move on to get those jobs that we talk about in the blueprint now. That’s not reality for many of those people. It’s not reality because this government is going to put them in a place where they don’t get to take advantage of that.

The cost of this program…. The saving here is a little bit under $16 million. I know the Speaker has said we shouldn’t be talking about money and these bills, and that’s fine. But let’s be clear. Let’s just talk about what the saving is — about $16 million.

You have to ask yourself if it’s really about giving people the skill set to lift their families up, if it really is about people who are working hard and trying to be successful and need a little bit of help to get the education to be able to upgrade to that job that’s going to get them that $25 an hour maybe. Don’t you think that it would be worth $16 million across a $43 billion, $44 billion budget to create that opportunity?

It’s not an handout. It’s an investment. It’s an investment in people in this province. It’s an investment in the human spirit. It’s a investment in people who want to move ahead. Very little money relative to what we spend every day in this province.

Doesn’t the Liberal government just think for a minute that it would be a good idea to give people a chance to help themselves, to give people a chance to move forward because they have initiative? But instead, more roadblocks. More roadblocks in front of people — $1,600 a semester. That’s a stunning amount of money. You know, for somebody with kids, if you make $15 an hour, they start taking your grant away. Not much money if you’re living in British Columbia.

We need to do better. Doing better means creating opportunity for people who are prepared to grab it. This government has failed miserably in terms of how they’ve dealt with adult basic education. The program is in trouble. You’ve created the trouble. You should fix it.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada