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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 4

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

MONDAY, MAY 4, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

BIRTH OF CHILD TO
DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. I am delighted to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their daughter, Her Royal Highness Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, the Princess of Cambridge. On behalf of all British Columbians, I wish her family happiness, health and joy. British Columbians are invited to offer their congratulations to the royal couple by writing an on-line message at www.gg.ca/royalbabywishes.

Thank you, all.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to introduce members from the Canadian Mental Health Association. Joining us in the gallery are 35 members from the organization. They are here today to mark the start of national Mental Health Week. Tomorrow morning we will be attending the MLA breakfast with the group and are very much looking forward to hearing about the work that they are doing.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Bev Gutray, CEO of the mental health association; Judy Moore, chair, Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division board of directors; as well as presidents and board members from across the province. Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

[1335]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the galleries today are two representatives from the B.C. Federation of Labour and four members of the youth workers committee. Joining us from the B.C. Fed are Denise Moffatt and Lynn Bueckert. They are joined by Simka Marshall from the Canadian Federation of Students; Caitlin Davidson-King from Unifor; Maxx “Call Me Brendan” Mackenzie from IATSE, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; and Kari Michaels from BCGEU. Would the House please make these young workers very, very welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think everyone in this House knows how engaged the Rotary clubs in the province of British Columbia, Canada and around the world are in encouraging youth to get engaged in community activities — provincially, federally and otherwise. Today we’re joined by a Rotarian from my constituency, Ed Lan. He’s brought with him a number of students from Kwantlen Park Secondary School — Amy Vera, Jasleen Dhillon, Emily Wright and Shaun Renshaw — and their teacher Colin Borst. I’d like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

B. Ralston: My wife, Miriam Sobrino, and my daughter Sonia Sobrino Ralston are here in the gallery today. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: So 41 years ago today a young 19-year-old girl, daughter of a dairy farmer in Ontario, made the decision to marry me. And 41 years later she’s still sticking with me, no matter what people tell her. She’s up in the gallery today. My wife, Beth, has never been to question period before in my 14 years here. Everybody should be on their…. I have told her this is a very collegial place and that we all like each other. It’s a real pleasure to welcome her, and I hope the House will help me welcome my wife, Beth.

K. Corrigan: Both this morning and this afternoon there was a large delegation in the chamber — individuals concerned about adult basic education. I’m not going to reintroduce all of them, but we’ll simply say that we have here Chris Murphy and a group from VESTA.

We have a large group from the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators led by Cindy Oliver, their president; Patti Bacchus, a Vancouver school board trustee; many students that benefit from adult education; and in addition, Mark Kunen and a delegation of 14 from the Camosun College Faculty Association. Would you please make all of them very welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce a few people to the House today. First, I’d like to introduce an individual from my constituency, Janet Smukowich. Janet is the true definition of volunteer. She’s a member of the Parksville Rotary. She reads to the local kindergarten class. She’s on the board of the SOS, the Society of Organized Services, as well as Beach Fest. I’m sure I’m missing a multitude of other things that she does within the community.

I’d please like to ask the House to make her feel welcome. She has been here before. I have no doubt that we will not disappoint her with our activities here in the House.

I'd also like to introduce, first, a fellow Paralympic athlete and medal winner, Dr. Gary Birch, who is the executive director of the Neil Squire Society. He is also a professional engineer, a member of the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility as well as an Order of Canada recipient.

Joining him today is employment coordinator Wendy Cox from the Victoria Disability Resource Centre. Together they support employment opportunities for people with disabilities, identifying functional barriers to employment and equipment needs to overcome those barriers.

Earlier today I had the opportunity and the pleasure to announce that Gary and his team at the Neil Squire Society will deliver the B.C. government’s new technology-at-work program that will provide assistive technology to support persons with disabilities to find employment.

[1340]

As well, joining them is Hannalora Leavitt, who used assistive technology to assist her in completing her master’s degree and has found work as an arts and culture writer. I would please ask the House to join me in welcoming Gary, Wendy and Hannalora.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d ask the House to make welcome a group of 40 bright young grade 10 students who are in the precinct today from Killarney high school. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Janet Nichol.

Killarney high school is one of the largest high schools in Vancouver. It excels in academics and athletics, and they are particularly proud of their music program. It offers an all-round excellent education to the students of southeast Vancouver, in particular Vancouver-Fraserview. I’d ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery today are three ladies from the Ministry of Children and Family Development — Zita Teng, who’s the directory of executive operations in the deputy minister’s office; Emma Restall, who’s the documents and FOI coordinator in the deputy minister’s office; and Julia Phillips, who is my administrative assistant — and Devon Phillips, who is Julia’s sister and also a co-op student with the Ministry of Education. Will you please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: Today, for anniversaries, I’m pleased to introduce Mr. Jeet Rana. This is the 40th anniversary, in May, that he joined the public service of British Columbia to support the B.C. Energy Commission hearings in the construction of the Revelstoke dam.

Since joining the public service, Jeet has worked on a number of key initiatives, including his crowning achievement, which came as a senior economist for the Ministry of Health. He was one of the first South Asians in the public service of British Columbia, and we’re very grateful for the energy and time he has spent serving the government of British Columbia.

Also, any successful public servant has the support of a strong family. With him is his wife, Parminder Rana, who has a postgraduate degree in tourism and hotel management from the university of Jaipur and is currently a volunteer with the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. Would the House join us in thanking Mr. Jeet Rana for his 40 years of service to the people of British Columbia.

S. Sullivan: Joining us are two impressive and capable young men who serve the House as legislative assistants. They are both celebrating their birthdays. Please congratulate Derek Robertson and Adam McPhee.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s an honour for me to introduce the Lieutenant Governor from the great state of Alaska, Mr. Byron Mallott, who is in the gallery. We’re very grateful that the Lieutenant Governor is visiting us here in British Columbia. We hope he has a great time. He comes from a very beautiful part of the world. We also live in a very beautiful part of the world, so I hope that he has a great trip. Please help me make him feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MINING INDUSTRY

J. Tegart: Every day across B.C. people benefit from mining, and every year each British Columbian uses almost 50,000 pounds of mined products. This vital industry not only provides us with the products we need; it supports job creation and improved public services, building communities throughout this province.

One of the best indicators of the industry’s success is the amount of money companies have spent on mineral exploration in B.C. This past year B.C. saw $338 million in exploration spending, accounting for more than 21 percent of all exploration spending in Canada. In 2001 that figure was less than 6 percent.

British Columbia’s six operating coal mines, ten operating metal mines and hundreds of aggregate pits and quarries support 30,000 good jobs, and wages in the mining industry are great. Since June 2011 six new metal mines have opened in B.C., including Red Chris gold and copper mine, which will be fully operational soon, creating more than 1,600 jobs.

This record is unmatched anywhere else in Canada. In my riding of Fraser-Nicola I am proud that Highland Valley Copper in Logan Lake and Copper Mountain in Princeton are safe, successful and generous contributors to their communities.

[1345]

In addition, up to ten new mines are expected over the next few years, including Avanti’s Kitsault project, which will employ 300 workers over 15 years; Pretium’s Brucejack project, 300 workers over 20 years; and Seabridge’s KSM project, 1,000 workers over 52 years.

Let’s all celebrate the benefits that come from mining in British Columbia by participating in Mining Week 2015 from May 4 to May 9.
[ Page 7959 ]

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

J. Darcy: Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day, and I joined with others at the Vancouver Art Gallery to mark this important day. The theme was the right to report freely and safely, something that British Columbians take for granted, but people in many other countries do not.

So far this year 24 journalists have been killed and 158 have been imprisoned for no crime except being journalists, for telling stories that certain regimes don’t want told, for taking photos that some don’t want the world to see, for shedding light where some would prefer to see darkness.

World Press Freedom Day holds a particular significance for British Columbians and Canadians this year because one of the most prominent journalists to be imprisoned is the award-winning Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy, who was a student here in B.C.

Mohamed and two colleagues served over 400 days in Cairo’s infamous Scorpion Prison, convicted in a trial that has been condemned around the world, and he is presently being retried on those same trumped-up charges. He is also in need of urgent medical care for a serious shoulder injury that became much worse as a result of his prison conditions.

Yesterday Mohamed spoke to us passionately, from Cairo to this gathering, urging us to raise our voices to support not just him but other journalists around the world.

I also had the opportunity to speak to him personally by phone because my husband, Gary, is one of his Vancouver lawyers who will be joining him in Cairo this week. He told me, and he asked me to tell this House, that there’s nothing he wants more than to be able to marry his fiancée, Marwa, get on a plane to Vancouver and start a new life here in British Columbia, but he needs to be free first.

We can all help to make that happen. I would encourage you to go to Free_Fahmy on Twitter and visit his Facebook page. We can all raise our voices to support world press freedom around the world.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
AND SOCIAL INNOVATION

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to recognize May as Social Enterprise Month. Each and every day social enterprises across B.C. are making a difference in people’s lives, in our communities and in our neighbourhoods. These organizations are dedicated to finding innovative ways to help solve society’s most pressing social, cultural and environmental problems. They range from thrift stores and farmers markets to businesses that provide work experience, affordable housing and jobs for people with disabilities or those who face other barriers to employment.

In 2011 we started a conversation about social innovation and enterprise with the creation of the B.C. Social Innovation Council. From there, the B.C. Partners for Social Impact was established, with more than 100 partners from government, business, non-profit organizations and academic and financial institutions.

In July 2013 we created Canada’s first hybrid corporate structure, a community contribution company, or C3, to help socially driven businesses market themselves to both customers and investors. To date, 26 organizations have registered as C3s.

In July of 2014 BCPSI launched hubcapbc.ca, B.C.’s on-line social innovation hub. We know that no single organization, government or business can solve society’s most difficult challenges on its own. This May let’s work together to celebrate and raise the profile of this important sector and the work that they do to strengthen our communities.

I encourage you to visit and support social enterprises in your communities and go to hubcapbc.ca to learn more about B.C.’s social innovation and social enterprises sector.

Please join me in recognizing May as Social Enterprise Month and help support social enterprise and social innovation across our province to create a better British Columbia for all of us.

KIDS HELP PHONE FUNDRAISING WALK

R. Fleming: This past Sunday I had the pleasure of attending the annual Kids Help Phone walk at Braefoot Elementary School. This annual walk is held the first Sunday in May — the Walk So Kids Can Talk.

[1350]

It’s a positive five-kilometre walk that brings together families, school groups, local businesses and community organizations to support kids’ emotional health by raising funds for the Kids Help Phone.

The Kids Help Phone is a 24-7 counselling and information service that provides free and anonymous counselling and support to over 5,000 young people, ages five to 20, in Victoria and to 6.5 million calls nationally every year. This 1-800 number connects young people with professional counsellors, on average, in less than 26 seconds. Their website offers a wide range of supports that help develop life skills and information that help kids deal with a complex range of issues in their lives.

Through live support, games and interactive tools, the Kids Help Phone and on-line services provides age-appropriate information and guides users to local programs and services in their communities.

There is a national and a provincial conversation between parents and practitioners and policy-makers about the gaps in our mental health services, particularly for young people. I think at this march people came together to support services that they already have and that they value in their community. The Kids Help Phone raises the majority of their funds through donations, and this year’s
[ Page 7960 ]
Walk So Kids Can Talk will raise $2 million nationally.

I want to thank Leslie Sutherland, the fundraising chair for the Kids Help Phone in Victoria, and all the volunteers and participants who came out on Sunday. Their support made this event a great success. The proceeds raised provided invaluable support to young people across Canada.

I would also give special thanks to other people who gave of their time. The emcee for the event was Louise Hartland, who’s with CTV Vancouver Island. And then CFAX 1070 for their media sponsorship and all the volunteers at Braefoot community centre for the kids’ games and activities that they provided.

FIREFIGHTING SERVICE
OF SHEILA KIRKWOOD

J. Sturdy: In Whistler in 1986 Sheila Kirkwood became a paid on-call volunteer firefighter. That alone made her unusual at a time that could really be described only as a man’s world. In 1990 she was hired as the province’s first full-time female firefighter. Over the last 25 years she has risen through the ranks, demonstrating what women can do, by not only becoming B.C.’s first female fire inspector but B.C.’s first female deputy fire chief.

As she plans for her retirement this fall, it will be after several years as the chief of Whistler Fire Rescue. I was a professional ski patrol in the resort at the time that Sheila was first hired, so I knew her through her work. I am not at all surprised at her success. I must admit I am a little surprised that 29 years have passed. However, clearly, one would be hard-pressed to find a better role model for women in a career such as firefighting than Sheila Kirkwood. It’s a role that she has certainly embraced.

In spite of the fact that while many male-dominated fields had undergone a significant gender shift, firefighting had not. In fact, as recently as 2006 less than 4 percent of Canada’s firefighters were female. As chief, Sheila is accountable for administration and overall operations of the entire fire department and the fire service. In that, Sheila has done, clearly, a tremendous job.

I think it also bears mentioning that, in many ways, what Sheila has accomplished also reflects on the resort itself. Whistler is progressive, aggressive and world-leading, and why would it surprise anyone that Whistler would lead in this field as well? In this regard, I want to say congratulations to Whistler, for being open to the future, and more importantly, to Chief Sheila Kirkwood, for leading the way.

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

K. Corrigan: Since 2008 adults in this province have been able to take courses to finish or upgrade their high school free of tuition. And there has been a great uptake — thousands of British Columbians accessing adult education to improve their lives.

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

[1355]

These courses open up a wide range of possibilities for single parents, older workers laid off from resource industries, new immigrants and younger people who could not complete high school. They are predominantly women. People like Walid Haouas, an immigrant from Tunisia who needs to redo courses in order that he can qualify to go to BCIT to become a petroleum engineer; or John Corsiglia, who’s in the audience today; or Halima Yousouf, who stayed home to raise her children as a single mom and wants to get an education to make her life better for her, her children and her grandchildren.

Education is the most important tool we have to ensure equality and access to a better life. We know the vast majority of these students go on. They take ESL or adult education upgrade and are doing that in order to go on to further post-secondary education.

I celebrate the many teachers who have provided tuition-free basic education for all British Columbians. I celebrate the many thousands of students who are working hard to make their lives better.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

J. Horgan: Last week the Minister of Justice kicked off Emergency Preparedness Week and discussed the challenges that we face living here in British Columbia. As we all reflect on the tragedy in Nepal, it’s a graphic reminder that here in British Columbia we are very susceptible to seismic activity and a whole host of other emergencies that need responses from government.

The minister said that we need to be on our own for the first period of time. I think that’s generally accepted by the citizens of British Columbia. They understand that government can’t do everything for them. But they also, I think, have an expectation that government is doing something.

This past spring the government received the Renteria report on earthquake preparedness. That report said: “The majority of the preparedness gaps and recommendations outlined in previous reports appear to remain valid today.”

In other words, for those at home, taxpayers paid for a report that confirmed that we’d received other reports in the past that highlighted deficiencies. Here we are, months and months after receiving that report. Those
[ Page 7961 ]
deficiencies still exist. In fact, the minister is quoted to have said over the weekend that perhaps people should get together and have barbecues to talk about their own personal preparedness with their neighbours.

I do not want to diminish the importance of us knowing what’s going on in our community, but surely to goodness, we can do better than ask our neighbours to take care of themselves. We need to have a big plan. The minister called for a big plan. My question to her is: where is it?

Hon. S. Anton: When we all see the devastation of a major earthquake that we can see right in front of our eyes on our television screens right now — the devastation in Nepal, the devastation to families, to individuals, to the communities that people live in — we can understand very clearly how important it is to be ready for an earthquake or, indeed, any major disaster.

That’s why in British Columbia we are tackling this issue from a number of different facets. While the member tends to belittle one of them, there is a package here of things that are going on.

They are these. One of them is leadership — that is, the leadership by emergency management British Columbia amongst all of our partners in emergency response. Our government partners; our industry partners; utilities; schools; health facilities; and, yes, individuals and neighbourhoods — everybody needs to be ready. We are in this together.

We are also looking at notification. We’ve upgraded our provincial emergency notification system. We’re looking at 911. Emergency notification is outbound; 911 is inbound. We are looking at infrastructure. Since 2001 we have invested well over $15 billion in upgrades — schools, hospitals, roads, bridges. We do need to be ready, and we need to tackle this on many different fronts. We are doing so.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, having a photo op and having a press conference is not substantial work on preparing for an emergency. If we were sincere, I would have expected the government would have invested in this recent budget in emergency preparedness, and they did not.

They invested in another report that told us that our preparedness is inadequate compared to jurisdictions just to the south of us or just to the north of us.

[1400]

Again, my question to the minister is: will she commit today to put the photo ops on hold and genuinely invest with the people that are going to take care of us when tragedy does strike?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, it’s about leadership, it’s about infrastructure, and it’s about notification. There are other pieces of that as well. But on the leadership piece, emergency management British Columbia is making sure…. It’s ensuring that all of our partners know their obligations and are ready for an earthquake or a disaster. That includes local government partners. That includes, as I said, industry. It includes utilities, it includes health facilities, it includes schools, and yes, it includes people. It includes individuals.

When I hear that message sometimes being somewhat mocked, I must push back, because every single person in British Columbia — we all need to be ready. If you are in a home, a house, you need to have your household supplies ready. You need to have water ready. If you are in an apartment, you need to have your grab-bag ready by the front door.

Now, I know that the members opposite think that this is funny. But I don’t think British Columbians would think it was funny if they were in an earthquake and they didn’t have the information. Yes, indeed, that is a big part of our campaign right now — ensuring readiness, right from governments to industry to business to individuals and to neighbourhoods. It is important for all of us. We are in this together, if there’s a disaster.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Last weekend I was in my community at Sooke for the Vancouver Island Emergency Preparedness Conference, where people, representatives, volunteers from every corner of Vancouver Island, very much at risk in the event of a significant seismic event — very much at risk — said, almost with one voice, that the problem was not being able to prepare our neighbours. The problem was: would government be there when we needed it? Would there be resources to assist with the planning for local neighbourhoods, for local communities? Is there infrastructure for seismically upgrading our schools? I think we’ll hear more about that as the afternoon presses on.

What did the Renteria report say? Did it say we need more photo ops? No. It said we need “more fully matured emergency management logistics capability.” Now, that’s not jargon. That’s not a photo op. That’s a reality for people on the ground.

What did Renteria also call for? Sufficient resources to meet the challenges. The Auditor General a year ago said that “what we don’t have in place is the big plan, the overall structure.” That’s the piece that, apparently, the minister said she was going to work on.

Again, let’s put aside the rhetoric. Let’s put aside the photo ops, and let’s say to the volunteers right across British Columbia, who are putting themselves on the line to make sure their neighbours and their communities will be able to sustain seismic activity or other emergencies: will we finally get the resources to make that happen, or are we going to continue to just have pictures in the front of the Legislature?
[ Page 7962 ]

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the members of the member’s community and, indeed, emergency management volunteers across British Columbia, because they are getting themselves ready, their families ready and their communities ready. That is so important for all of us.

Let me talk about a few other things that we’ve been doing. The provincial emergency notification system. This is how we notify people and communities, particularly in terms of an earthquake or a possible tsunami. It used to take an hour and a half to get information out. But the other day there was an earthquake off Haida Gwaii, which fortunately did not cause any damage. It took ten minutes to get those notifications out. It used to take an hour and a half. This is the provincial emergency notification system.

These are the kinds of things that the member is asking about. There is very considerable work going on. As I said, that’s outgoing.

Incoming, we are looking at how to bring the 911 system up to the next generation of 911. That’s a piece of consultation that is underway right this moment with the goal of upgrading our 911 system. At the same time, in terms of alerts, people may know that the federal government is now requiring radio stations, TV stations and broadcasters to be available, requiring them to give out alerts when needed.

[1405]

As I said, this is being tackled from a number of different fronts: leadership, notification and infrastructure. On the notification front we are in better shape than we were even recently. We are continuing to improve because we do need to be ready if the big one hits us.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

R. Fleming: Let me take the members of the government side back down memory lane to right before the last election, when the Premier made a campaign announcement about seismic school upgrading, saying: “Absolutely nothing is more important than keeping our kids safe.” She’s right.

Since then the government has utterly failed to keep the Premier’s promise made to parents and kids on that day to upgrade all schools in British Columbia by 2020. This was a goal and a timeline that was first announced in 2005. It was reannounced in 2009, again in 2011 and then, of course, in that photo op in 2013 — all schools seismically upgraded by 2020.

Just two months ago the Minister of Education said: all schools upgraded by the year 2030. He has added ten years of leaving children in schools that are in danger of crumbling in an earthquake. So I have to ask this to the minister. How can his government say school seismic upgrades are their number one priority but then fall so short of the mark when it comes to actually keeping our kids safe?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve stood in this House on a number of occasions when asked about this and said very clearly, and I will try and do it again: this government’s policy on seismically upgrading schools is a top priority. We are working with school districts to make sure it’s done.

The member opposite, himself, joined me at a photo op to celebrate a seismic upgrade in his riding, because their school district was willing to work cooperatively with us to get it done. The member said at the time that it is an example of cooperation between a local school district and the province to do the work that has to be done.

But let me give the member some facts again. Since 2001 this government has invested $2.2 billion — billion — to seismically upgrade schools. One last point for the member, just so that he can remember it. As of this January, 145 schools have been completed in this province and 11 more are underway, and more are coming.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, I’ve never seen an individual so capable of putting such a cheery spin on an extra ten years of delay for your kids.

Last Friday the Attorney General reminded us that we live in one of the most dangerous parts of the world, where earthquakes could strike at any time, where we need to be prepared and where, indeed, earthquakes have struck. We’ve had near misses off Haida Gwaii and other places on our coastline.

This government hasn’t come even close to preparing our schools for the big one when it hits. That’s the problem. What’s worse, the government is continuing to actually find more high-risk schools. Let’s talk about Richmond. Last year 20 schools, some on them on wooden foundations, found to be at high risk of collapse. Two schools in Ucluelet added to the list this year.

The wait for seismic upgrades is growing longer, not better, under this government. To the minister, why is his government failing to make the safety of our children his priority and failing to deliver on the Premier’s promise to upgrade schools in communities that all MLAs represent in the province of British Columbia?

[1410]

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, I really believe the NDP policies are like a weather vane. They could be an alternative energy source because of how fast they spin around.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: But let me speak to the very thing that the member has talked about.

Interjections.
[ Page 7963 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. The House will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The only seismic upgrade that the members opposite invested in was a liquor distribution warehouse. So I think them lecturing our government, when we’ve spent billions of dollars upgrading seismically not only in schools but other infrastructure…. That criticism, I think, should be pointed at themselves for never having done anything other than a liquor warehouse.

WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

H. Bains: Unfortunately, this government has a long history of talking about safety but then not following it up with their actions. After the catastrophic 2003 Kelowna fire former Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon and respected fire ecologist Robert Gray issued a report to help prevent that kind of devastation from happening again.

The key recommendation was for the provincial government to take the lead in cleaning up the forests around the communities. Just like their responses to earthquake threats, the Liberals shuffled their responsibility, in this case to municipalities.

Can the Minister of Forests advise this House what percentage of land identified as being at risk by the Filmon report has been cleaned up in 11 years?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It provides me an opportunity before I respond to the question to again recognize the great work that our fire management branch on the front lines do in the province year in and year out — protecting communities, protecting assets, protecting people in the province. They do a great job, and they’re recognized as world leaders in fire management in British Columbia.

Over the past number of years we’ve invested over $62 million in a strategic wildfire interface program funded through local governments and supported, in part, by the federal government as well. So $62 million over the last number of years, and just this year we added $5 million to the program to support the continuation of that program. That’s along with the $10 million in projects that are currently underway in communities throughout the province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister ducked the question. Let me help him out. Less than 5 percent of the land that was identified as at risk has been cleaned up, and 10 percent that was identified as high risk — and it’s been 11 years — has been cleaned. So clearly, they have failed in their responsibility, and that’s putting communities across the province at risk of catastrophes just like what we saw in Kelowna in 2003.

Robert Gray, the co-author of that report, has been sounding the alarm for years about the government’s inaction. In 2013, for example, he said the situation in Manning Park was “a ticking bomb.” He said that throughout the Interior the situation was similar, with an abundance of fuel just waiting for the right conditions for a massive destructive and possibly deadly fire.

My question to the minister is: why is the Liberal government refusing to put forward resources to keep British Columbians safe?

[1415]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out in my response, it’s $62 million of investment in the program over the last number of years and $10 million in projects that are currently underway in communities throughout the province. An additional $5 million announced for the strategic wildfire interface program with the Union of B.C. Municipalitiesis targeted at high-risk communities, with that additional investment. In addition to that, landscape fire management protection planning is underway in many areas of the province.

Again, this requires an overall effort on all parts. It’s investment in the program, but it also requires local governments, through FireSmart in their communities, through local bylaws. It also requires the cooperation and support of homeowners and individuals, with FireSmart on their properties. We look around the province to communities like Logan Lake and others that have done that. It’s a combined effort, and it’s going to take the combined efforts of all of us — government investment, local governments, homeowners, landowners — in addressing this issue.

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

G. Holman: When there was an oil spill in English Bay, it took all night for booms to be placed around a ship spilling fuel into the water and onto our beaches. My question is to the Minister of Justice. With emergency management B.C.’s funding frozen and the federal government claiming nothing needs to improve, how can British Columbians trust this government to protect the coast from oil spills?

Hon. M. Polak: We all know that the resources are not sufficient on our west coast of Canada to deal with a spill in the event that we have that kind of major catastrophe. Even the federal government’s own tanker safety expert panel report outlines the deficiencies and gaps that are present.

But that’s not to say that nothing has happened. As a result of the Nuka Research report which we commissioned and the two tanker safety expert panel reports,
[ Page 7964 ]
the federal government has begun to act in ways that we have not seen in generations. Probably the best example of that is recent amendments they’ve made to the Canada Shipping Act to ensure that in fact there is much greater authority and enforcement and much greater focus and ability with respect to prevention.

We still look to the contribution toward greater resources on the ground, but with two Coast Guard vessels announced, we’re confident that things will continue to move forward.

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: My confidence isn’t as clear as the minister’s. This is the same federal government that’s been closing down Coast Guard stations in British Columbia, in case you hadn’t noticed. It’s not just British Columbians worried about our ability to respond to oil spills. Washington state says British Columbia’s oil spill response is completely inadequate. In fact, they’re concerned about losing billions of dollars if there’s a spill, because pollution knows no boundaries.

Again to the Minister of Justice: Washington state doesn’t trust the Liberals to protect this coast from oil spills, so why should British Columbians?

Hon. M. Polak: Madame Speaker, let me provide the member assurance that we work very closely with our U.S. counterparts in respect of spill preparedness and response issues. We are in fact a founding member of the Pacific States/B.C. Oil Spill Task Force.

We also work together with them through the Canada-U.S. joint marine pollution contingency plan. Through that, we conduct joint exercises, joint planning. In fact, there’s an exercise scheduled for Dixon Entrance in Prince Rupert. That is scheduled this year for August 24 to 28. There was one held last year in Blaine, Washington, for the Pacific area. The next one has yet to be scheduled.

We’re very active with our U.S. counterparts. We know there are still resources that need to be provided. That’s one of the reasons that we were the ones who commissioned the Nuka Research report. We were the ones who have been holding the federal government’s feet to the fire, and they have responded in ways that we have not seen in generations.

[1420]

ACCESS TO ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

K. Corrigan: Among our guests in the gallery today is Amy Collins. Amy has been working full time and upgrading her academic courses at the Gathering Place in Vancouver. Amy wants to be an electrician, and she’s been upgrading her English, physics, biology, chemistry and math. But this government has put $1,600 worth of new fees in front of her, and she’s not eligible for a grant.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education please explain to Amy Collins why he is making it so much harder for her to improve her life with a skilled trade?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is correct that adult basic education is an important program, and that’s why this government has guaranteed that those who have not completed high school can complete it for free in the K-to-12 system.

For those who completed high school and seek to upgrade their qualifications, grants are provided that provide full tuition, books, supplies, transport and child care — a comprehensive package.

An individual with an income of less than $23,600 gets their adult basic education package for free. A family of three — that is, an individual who wants to pursue ABE and their spouse or child or perhaps two children and a single parent — if their income is about $36,200, they get the complete package for adult basic education at no charge.

We are pleased and proud to be able to support adult basic education in this province.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, thousands of students are being denied adult basic education as a result of the policies of this government.

Also in the gallery today is Walid Haouas. Mr. Haouas is a landed immigrant from Tunisia. He wants to take petroleum engineering at BCIT, but because his Tunisian credits aren’t recognized, he needs to upgrade as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Haouas’s income as a busboy is simultaneously too high for him to qualify for a grant and too low for him to be able to afford the new $550-per-course fees.

Again, to the Advanced Education Minister, could he explain to Mr. Haouas why he and other hard-working landed immigrants are being shut out of the high-skilled jobs that we need to fill?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite surely knows and, hopefully, has advised the gentleman in the gallery that these courses are available for $320 per unit, for a total of a maximum $1,600 for all five required units to complete the program.

The grants are also available to individuals who have an income 10 percent above the amounts I mentioned in my previous answer. Those individuals get a 50 percent support grant toward tuition, books, supplies, transport and child care.

We’re proud of the advanced education system we have in this province, because our goal is to make sure that individuals have the opportunities they seek to ex-
[ Page 7965 ]
pand their skills, to build their talents and to thrive in a growing economy.

J. Shin: Ms. Collins and Mr. Haouas are not the only people in the gallery whose future is now challenged by this minister’s cuts. On June 2, as a direct result of the Liberal cuts to adult basic education, the Downtown East Education Centre will close. The Hastings Education Centre, as well, will close. High school literacy outreach programs will also close.

The minister’s cuts will put the dreams of a better life further out of reach for 2,000 working adults in Vancouver alone. These people are doing everything they can. They’re working hard. They’re going back to school, trying to lift themselves back up.

Will the minister tell those who travelled to join us in the gallery and hundreds more watching this debate through the podcast across this province why he’s throwing what can be the last straw that will break the backs of many adult learners in this province?

[1425]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think it’s indicative that the latest survey of adult basic education graduates, 1,400 respondents, shows that 80 percent of the respondents had a high school diploma or equivalent before starting their adult basic education studies, where they sought to upgrade their skills. Of those who entered the program, 95 percent said they were very satisfied or satisfied with their ABE courses.

These are available at 18 institutions around the province and a number of high schools around the province. This is a comprehensive program, a grant program that was increased by 33 percent this year to provide the grants so that these individuals can obtain the skills they want to find the work that is so readily available in this growing economy.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby-Lougheed on a supplemental.

J. Shin: What makes these cuts so unacceptable is that the minister knows they’re barriers. He knows because the former Liberal Attorney General Geoff Plant told this government in his Campus 2020 report that there is a clear public interest in eliminating barriers to basic education for working adults.

There are no ifs and buts. Education is good for the economy — period. The government knows this and had the tuition-free policy for eight years, but it’s tossing that out. Will the minister do what he knows is right and immediately restore funding to adult education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s perhaps appropriate that the member who asked the question and I both came to this country as immigrants. Both came from families with very little to put toward their education. Both prospered. Both completed medical degrees, and both have prospered in this economy.

In response to the query about alleged cuts to the education system, that’s simply incorrect. This is a transition year. For that transition year, we have provided $6.9 million in transitional funding for institutions so that they can make the change to a grant-based system. We’ve increased the grant by 33 percent, to $7.6 million, to ensure that those individuals in need have access to the education they need so that the member opposite and I and they can all benefit from education in our society.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Corrigan: I have a great deal of pleasure in presenting a petition from Adult Ed Matters. These 1,500 or so signatories are urging the Premier and the Minister of Education and their government to reverse the decision to cut funding for adult education programs in British Columbia in order to provide quality, accessible education for all.

N. Macdonald: I’d like to present a petition to the House from almost 1,000 people living in the southeast of the province. I would draw to the attention of the Transportation Minister that it’s from a group called Taking Back East Kootenay Highways, and it asks government to address the grave concerns of those who have signed the petition about the lack of highway maintenance that people are experiencing driving on the highways in the East Kootenays.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly I call continued second reading of Bill 11, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

D. Eby: It’s an honour to rise to speak to Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, and in particular, to express some concerns with respect to the direction that this bill sets for education in British Columbia.
[ Page 7966 ]

I think a lot of people coming out of the strike of this past year recognize that there are a lot of opportunities for improving our education system and for working with teachers, parents, kids and trustees in ensuring that our education system is the best in the world. The reason for doing that, for all of us to work together, is obvious. Education is the passport to a more prosperous future for all of us, not just for those in the education system.

What is one to take from this bill that’s been presented to us except for the fact that the minister looked at the education system, looked at the challenges that were in front of us and decided that the overwhelming issue was that the minister did not have enough power? That seems to me to be incredibly bizarre. The reason why it’s bizarre is not….

You don’t have to take it from me. You can take it from this minister himself who, following the school strike, signed a memorandum of understanding with the trustees, said it was time for a new relationship with teachers. It was a time for a new start. The Premier said the same thing recently — that it was time for cooperation in governance, for consultation and cooperation, that a new day had started.

Then we get Bill 11, a bill that, among other things, gives the minister the authority to take the power away from some school boards and make them subservient to other boards, force them into shared-service agreements, order them to participate in various projects on any subject he specifies, and to do this without giving them a heads-up that this was coming.

No wonder the B.C. School Trustees Association voted on and passed the following motion: “That BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provision and where shared-service providers are designated by the Minister of Education.”

Does that sound like a cooperative, consultative approach that led to that motion? No. Clearly, this was the complete opposite of the approach that was promised and, yet one more time, a broken promise from this Education Minister and from this Premier with respect to education.

Now, we have a lot of hard-working school trustees from many different political parties in Vancouver, and I can tell you that during the past municipal election the candidates for school boards took their jobs really seriously. They went out into the community. They said: “What’s going on with the schools? How can I focus on the issues that matter to you, to your kids, to your community?” They were elected through the municipal election process to represent those interests and to represent parents who send their kids to school in my community.

[1435]

The idea that the minister would present a bill in this place that undermines that entire democratic process, that democratic election of school trustees in my community — not just my community; in all of our communities — is an affront to the idea of an elected school board.

Now, let’s just start with the idea of compelling school districts to take part in shared-service agreements. If the shared-service agreements are a savings, if there is a benefit for the school board, well, why on earth would this minister have to force them to participate in it? They’ll be lining up to participate in shared-services agreements that save money, that are more efficient, that are a benefit for teachers and students and parents. No need to force them into that.

That hasn’t been the track record of this government. It hasn’t been the track record at all. In fact, the history of shared services is best exemplified in the BCeSIS program, $100 million that this government spent on a computer program that it forced schools into. That was a massive disaster. Again, don’t take my word for it.

The Okanagan-Skaha school board chairwoman, Linda Van Alphen, said: “I have a lot of trouble with this” — with forcing school boards into these shared-service agreements — “especially when you think the biggest shared service we have in the province is the student information system, and it’s never worked well.” So 100 million bucks for a system that never worked well, which is generous. If you talk to teachers that tried to use this program, they were endlessly frustrated by crashes, by being locked out when they were working on report cards.

This government decides that the issue was that they weren’t easily able to force school boards into participating with this broken computer program. They want more power to force them into other programs instead of cooperating with them and convincing them and cajoling them and showing them the advantage of shared services. “Too much work. We’ve got things to do. We’re going to force them into it.”

Again, the minister could force school boards to work with each other through shared-services agreements. That would make one board have increased authority over another board. Now try to imagine this scenario: where the people of the city of Vancouver elect their school board and the people of the city of Surrey elect their school board, and then the city of Surrey has decision-making power over students in Vancouver. Absolutely no democratic link back for people to vote against a Surrey school trustee, and yet they’re making decisions that affect Vancouver students. Now, how does that work?

At least with the first one, where the minister can compel it, you can vote against him if you live in a constituency. But this second provision actually removes the idea of democratic accountability entirely with respect to our school boards.

Deputy Speaker: I’d remind the member that we’re currently debating the amendment and not the main
[ Page 7967 ]
motion. It seems like the member’s comments seem to be more about the bill itself than the amendment to refer the bill to the committee.

D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the reminder. Certainly, all of these are very good reasons to refer this matter to the committee.

One of the concepts that I started with when I started my remarks was the idea that this bill had not been adequately consulted on, that this bill had been forced through against the recommendations of the B.C. School Trustees Association. Referring this bill to committee could address this concern.

I think the Speaker is absolutely right. I got into the weeds on this bill. It’s easy to do, and that’s exactly why we need to get to committee on this matter — so that the school trustees can come and so that the people who elected the school trustees can come and say: “Here are the reasons why we have democratically elected school boards. Here are the reasons why our community chooses school board trustees to come and make decisions on our behalf.”

[1440]

There are some very serious questions in this bill with respect to access to student information. There are many people in the community that are concerned — in the day and age that we live in of data breaches and privacy concerns. They’re very concerned about privacy, and they would have great interest in coming to our committee — not just members of the public but experts in privacy, to come to the committee and educate the members of the committee about the implications of changing, for example, section 170 of the School Act, currently entitled “Non-disclosure of student records,” to “Student personal information.”

Where the current section forbids ministry employees from disclosing student personal information, these new amendments appear to be permissive.

Privacy is a complicated field. There’s no question. But the principles behind it are sound, which is that if you send your kid to school, their information will not be released without your consent as a parent. Why is that important? Well, there are any number of reasons why that would be important with respect to implications for them in the future if there’s a discipline issue, if there’s an issue of academic performance. Because once that data is released, it’s out there forever.

This is a complicated area of law. So, for example, would we bring experts into committee — I think so — to tell us whether there needs to be a privacy impact assessment, as required by section 69 of FIPA? The bill proposes to remove an offence if a person knowingly discloses any information contained in a student record that identifies a student or francophone student. We could bring in experts to provide testimony about why that section was in there.

When you think about domestic violence situations, situations of abuse, releasing information about which school a student attends could be a matter of safety for that student and that student’s family. We need to know: if you remove this offence, does that mean that student’s personal information is no longer released if it is no longer considered serious enough to constitute an offence? Clearly, this is an opportunity for a committee to bring in the expert advice that this Legislature needs to make these very serious decisions, decisions that will affect the safety of students.

When you’re talking about consultation, sometimes that just gets thrown out without any justification for what could potentially be consulted on. Someone just doesn’t like the decision. “I don’t like the decision. I wish I’d been consulted. If I’d been consulted, I would have said I didn’t like it.”

Well, when you’re looking at Bill 11 — which proposes, for example, telling teachers who are experts in what they do every day that the government wants to take over aspects of dictating what their professional development should be…. Here’s an area where teachers, perhaps, could come to a committee and provide some feedback about exactly how government could be helpful in that regard, if in fact that’s the case.

I try to think about a scenario in which I as a legislator or somebody on the other side of the House as a legislator would know more about what a teacher should be doing in professional development than teachers would. I have trouble thinking of that scenario. Clearly, the government has some scenarios in mind.

I would like someone to come to committee and share with the government the example of Vancouver. Vancouver has between 20 to 25 percent of the students at the schools, public schools in Vancouver, categorized as ELL learners. That means that their first language is not English.

[1445]

I would like for someone to come to committee and share with the committee the examples of how teachers in Vancouver have developed and prioritized their own professional development programs with the district to talk about really practical things: how do you communicate math, science, languages to students, to classes where a large number of students don’t have English as their first language?

Now, you have to have a detailed knowledge about the local community to be able to dictate what kind of professional development teachers have.

First of all, you have to know the makeup of the demographics of the community. What are the learning priorities for the students who are there? Do you have a large number of First Nations students? Then you need to particularly focus on aspects of First Nations culture. Maybe teachers need some extra briefing in First Nations culture in order to be able to teach it adequately. Do you have a large number of students with English-as-a-second-
[ Page 7968 ]
language challenges, as we do in Vancouver?

When I think about us legislating what professional development should be for teachers, I think a very useful thing, first, would be to go out and hear from those teachers at committee. What are you doing right now for professional development? How can government support what you’re doing? You don’t do the bill first and then go out and say: how can we support you? You go out and say: how can we support you? Then the bill should inform that.

I’ll give you an example here about why I feel that referring this to committee would be useful. In the parts of the legislation related to professional development, Jim Iker, who is the president of BCTF, said: “The changes to professional development were unfortunately announced without consultation. Government staff did say that there would be a two-year consultation, and we will hold them to that commitment.”

Here we have a scenario where we’re being asked to pass a bill, and then the government is going to go out for two years before implementing this bill and consult. Is that what we’re being told here? Well, sending this matter to committee would give teachers an opportunity to come and tell us: is that the right approach? My guess is it’s not. Clearly, the minister has brought this legislation here for us to consider because he thinks it’s the right approach to put the bill in place and then go out and consult. I disagree with him on that, but that’s not the only thing I disagree with him on.

Let’s send this thing to committee and hear from the teachers themselves. Let’s hear from the parents, and let’s hear from the students about professional development and how government can support better professional development in the province, and whether or not this bill is the ticket to that better professional development.

I have trouble thinking of a bigger priority than making sure that the teachers who teach our kids are well trained, are experts in the fields that we are asking them to teach, are keeping up with current research on teaching, best practices. We could have people come to this committee who have experience in professional development outside of the teaching world to provide information to the committee: is this bill going to achieve the goals?

For example, I come from the legal world, where professional development is very important for lawyers. The Law Society administers that professional development program for lawyers. Sending that to committee, inviting someone from the Law Society to say: “Here’s why we do it. Here’s why we think that the government telling lawyers what to do for professional development would be really unusual and not acceptable.”

Why would it be that one profession would be so different from the other in terms of professional development? Maybe the engineers could come, and they could share their experience with professional development. They could explain to the government why it would be really unusual for the government to come and tell the engineers how to do their professional development — like they’re proposing to do with the teachers. We could use those to try to figure out: why is it…?

What is the problem that we’re hoping to solve with this bill? Maybe there is a problem, but I had a really hard time understanding from the minister’s speech what the problem was he was seeking to solve with this bill. I read it. I didn’t see it. Maybe at committee it might give him a chance to call witnesses to the committee to help me understand what exactly his plans are for professional development.

[1450]

Let’s be totally frank. He doesn’t have to convince me. They’ve got a majority on that side. But he does have to convince the teachers and the parents and the students that this is in their best interests. I have to say, I did not see that in the speech.

By referring this matter to committee, maybe the minister could make his case. Maybe the minister would be able to share what he sees that makes him think that he would be better than teachers at knowing what teachers need to learn in order to be able to teach. I think that would be, potentially, a very useful thing.

When you talk about a democratically elected school board, I think it would be very useful to have school board trustees come to this committee and to share with this committee the reasons why they have run for, what appears to be to me, a very thankless position.

Here are trustees that receive budgets from this government. They’re asked to implement these budgets. They’re being told that even if they balance a budget under this bill and they make the cuts, cut the music program, cut the Downtown Eastside learning centres — I’m just using examples from Vancouver — cut the literacy programs, the government could still take over their work because the government thinks that they could do it better.

I think that it would be very useful, incredibly useful, for those trustees to come and say why it is that their leadership organization, the B.C. School Trustees Association, finds it so offensive that the government would seek to find new ways to remove them and to undermine their democratic independence.

I can guess why it would be offensive to dedicate your evenings and your weekends to a job that is not a well-paid job. You have to listen to parents. You have to work hard. You have to understand the policy. And not just a few parents — there are lineups of people at the microphone, and a lot of them are unhappy with you because you’re implementing budgets sent down by this province.

For me, it’s easy to understand why they might be profoundly offended by the idea that they implement this government’s budgets, that they put them into place, that they make the cuts and still this government needs to find ways to undermine their independence.
[ Page 7969 ]

I don’t think that there’s any speech that I can give here today that would change the minister’s mind on Bill 11. I do think that trustees and candidates for school trustee — and maybe people who see themselves as being trustees in the future — could come to committee and provide that viewpoint to the government and influence the direction of this bill.

It’s that firsthand information that makes the difference so often in terms of shaping legislation. I’m afraid this legislation was not shaped by that firsthand information.

Let me give you another example of the uncertainty that could be cleared up at committee. Prince George school district 57 trustee Sharel Warrington described this bill as “very concerning. Its implications we really won’t know until we’ve had a real good chance to look at what it means for the board governance, what it means for board autonomy, what it means in a lot of ways.” That’s from the Prince George Citizen.

How can it be that a trustee is so uncertain about the implications of this bill, given the minister’s commitment, through the memorandum of understanding, to work with school boards — a public commitment? Here’s a school board trustee saying: “We don’t even know what’s going on here. It’s very worrying to us.”

Committee stage will provide not just an opportunity for trustees to come and share information with this government but for this government to come and say to the trustees: “Here’s why we don’t trust you. Here’s why we want more powers to dissolve you and undermine your independence.”

I think it’ll be a tough sell. I think that is a tough sell to trustees who spend their evenings and their weekends working on behalf of their communities representing kids and parents. I wouldn’t blame the government for wanting to avoid that. But that’s part of governing.

[1455]

If you want to put a bill forward, if you want to put something forward and say, “We don’t trust the school boards. We want powers to undermine their decisions. We want powers to attack their decisions,” then you need to go out and sell that. I really do believe that.

I don’t believe that you can do that in this place without going out to the community, and that’s why this should be going to committee. I don’t think that you can introduce a bill like this without consultation, having promised consultation, and then vote against it going to committee. It leads to speculation about what the government’s motivation is.

I will read to you a quote from Patti Bacchus, a Vancouver school board trustee. She’s worried that the changes are actually about forcing schools to sell off land. “That’s an area where we’ve had a lot of pressure verbally from government and encouragement to get rid of, as they say, capacity. And my concern — this sort of pressure to privatize, to sell off public assets into private hands. You know, we see a wee bit of that with this government, and I’m concerned that they’ll be pushing, pushing harder on that.” The quote’s from the Georgia Straight.

If this isn’t about forcing schools to sell land, land that we’re going to need in a growing city, for increased capacity, for students…. If it’s not about that, committee is a great opportunity for the government to present its case. What is this really about?

This trustee can come and present to the committee, and the committee can ask her questions about why she has this opinion. That can be part of the discussion that informs this place, as we’re asked to pass this bill.

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

Well, if that’s the case, if Mr. Rae is correct, then the government, at committee stage, should be calling witnesses to explain why that is, why they need to take powers away from the school boards. It seems pretty straightforward.

You don’t do that. You don’t get to consensus on a bill, don’t get to shared understanding of what the purpose and the intent of the legislation is through the very limited speeches we’ve had from the government side of the House on this. Committee would be an opportunity for the government to make its case. I can feel widespread opposition on the other side. I said to Patti Bacchus: “I can feel the government….” Patti Bacchus is always honest about education funding.

Why doesn’t he talk about the new school board chair over there — Chris Richardson? Why doesn’t he talk about that guy, who said he wanted to cooperate with the government, who said he wanted a new relationship with the government?

Here’s a quote from him. He said that the bill seems to rearrange where the minister’s powers are written in the legislation. “He’s” — referring to the minister — “reshuffling the chairs of the Titanic.”

Surely the committee would want to hear from Mr. Richardson about how someone could be elected, and he could say that the reason why he’s excited to take over the chair is to have a new relationship with this government. Then he makes statements in the Georgia Straight saying that the minister is reshuffling the chairs of the Titanic.

It doesn’t sound like this is a great new relationship for Mr. Richardson, and that is exactly what the minister promised him and the rest of the Vancouver school board trustees. They have not delivered it, and referring this matter to committee would certainly at least start the conversation about why the government is pushing this bill through in the face of so many commitments to consultation. Committee is, by definition, a consultation
[ Page 7970 ]
with experts, with community members. What better way for this government to make good on its commitments here?

Those are my remarks about why this matter should be referred.

[1500]

R. Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon about a motion that, I think, does everybody who is involved in the Bill 11 debate thus far some good. It will satisfy those who have been completely left outside the process of drafting this legislation — frankly, some of whom are absolutely livid, understandably so, that their professional concerns have been ignored or that their elected responsibilities can be sidelined by ministerial decree for almost any reason.

It also gives government — and this is the point I want to try and make this afternoon — an opportunity to pull this back from the brink, because there are some disastrous things that could flow from Bill 11. It hasn’t been thought through. It hasn’t benefited from consultation. That point has been well made in this debate. This is an opportunity for government to say: “You know what? We didn’t get it right. We didn’t draft it right. We didn’t do what we said we would do.”

The minister failed his own memorandum, which he signed just last December, which specifically promised to consult on all areas involving major policy changes in his ministry or legislation. Here we have a real live example about legislation that failed to consult, that failed to live up to that memorandum.

It allows government to save face, because by every yardstick, by every measure so far, this government has alienated all of its educational partners. This legislation, as I said earlier in second reading debate, can only be perceived, is perceived now, as illegitimate because it lacked any of that input.

It’s also a good idea at this point in debate for government to be able to reflect on events that are happening in real time out there.

There are new opinions, developments, bits of information that have come to government’s attention since Bill 11 was introduced at first reading. Last week the B.C. Court of Appeal rendered an opinion that was different than the B.C. Supreme Court had rendered on two previous occasions, about the constitutionality of previous legislation. That will now go to the Supreme Court of Canada, very likely. We have heard that from the union that represents teachers in B.C.

I want to go back to what the Premier said just last Thursday, right after the decision was made publicly available. She said that her government now wants to work with teachers. She acknowledged that there have been a ton of problems, that there had been so much conflict between government and the teaching profession, and she put out a different message.

I was quite pleased to hear it, to be honest. I didn’t know where she would be going if the ruling had gone the way that it did last Thursday. But to her credit, she said that now’s the time to start working with teachers.

Indeed, there is so much work that this government needs to do to improve the relationship that has hit rock bottom with the teaching profession in B.C. The credibility left with this government when it speaks to teachers is almost zero. The tank is empty, and the Premier is right to say that that needs to be restored, rebuilt. It’s not going to happen overnight.

Here we have this afternoon, at this stage in this debate, an incredible opportunity for the Premier to make good on her word from last Thursday. If you want to turn the page and begin to work with teachers, then withdraw this legislation, put it to the special committee on education of this House. Let this democratic chamber actually hear from teachers — because the minister failed to do so. That would be a sign of very good faith.

The ball is in the government’s court to do that. The opposition has suggested the means to be able to do that through this motion for consultation about the professional development future of the teaching profession. I hope government will seize that. We haven’t heard too many government speakers so far address — I’m not sure if we’ve heard any, if memory serves correctly — speak to this specific motion.

[1505]

This is a constructive motion. This is a moment that government should seize to fix the errors that were inherent in the introduction of this legislation in the first part, in the first point. They should do it for that reason alone.

They should also do it because the other major stakeholder organization that they have completely alienated is the other branch of elected government that delivers public education on the ground, in real communities, in every region of British Columbia — namely, the elected trustees of the 60 districts in B.C. This government didn’t consult their elected partners prior to tabling Bill 11, and that was bad enough.

The school trustees association of the province actually came together. There were 400 delegates in one room, or approximately that many, that finally got to consider what the implications of Bill 11 were for them — in the middle of this debate, between introduction and where we are now. They rendered a new opinion and gave it to the minister. They passed resolutions that called on this government to do something.

Let me read them: “That the BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education — specifically, where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provision and where shared-services providers are designated by the Minister of Education.”
[ Page 7971 ]

They’ve made a very clear, unambiguous call: that on behalf of a united voice in education, representing elected school trustees, they wish this government to withdraw Bill 11. Government has so far given no indication that they will withdraw Bill 11.

They’ve also given no motivation at all, in the debate or at the introduction, that there’s some kind of urgency to this legislation. That is why my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers has offered a constructive intervention in this debate around Bill 11. It is to say that in the face of a government that refuses to entirely withdraw Bill 11, and in the face of a government that has utterly failed to consult all the people it should have talked to about Bill 11, there’s a middle path here: refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Education.

That will partially amend or attenuate the failure to consult in the first instance by this government. It will go a long way to addressing the concerns of school trustees that this legislative chamber won’t arrogantly and unilaterally use a majority to ram through a bill that they completely and categorically reject.

Let’s have a place where we can get into the nuts and bolts of the amendments proposed in Bill 11 — on this governance piece specifically, where it relates to the school trustees association, but the other major sections of the bill too. I’m going to try and cover them all this afternoon in motivating for the amendment.

I think the section about teachers’ professional development is as concerning as the fundamental changes around the minister giving himself new powers to appoint special advisers, oversee the direct administration of school boards and all of the other things that are brand-new that upset the balance, the checks and balances that we’ve enjoyed in education in B.C. for decades.

Let’s talk about the professional development piece. If we were to refer Bill 11 to the standing committee on education, we would actually be able to hear from the teaching profession. We’d be able to hear from those who are in the business of pedagogy who, through the Ministry of Advanced Education, run the faculties of education at our major universities in B.C., who do the teacher training that are preservice of new teachers coming into the system.

We’d be able to talk to those who are involved at a district level around in-service professional development for teachers. We’d be able to examine current practices. We’d be able to look at what’s done in other parts of the world.

[1510]

There is an incredible amount of focus right now internationally, in industrialized countries, around the importance of the professional support and the ongoing professional development of teachers. Obviously, teaching is the main pillar of the strength of one’s education system, because that is where the learning happens for our students. And to actually have a bill before the Legislative Assembly that would fundamentally reform — and by reform, I mean centralize control over — the direction of teachers’ professional development is unbelievable.

What an outrageous…. Well, I can’t call it a mistake. What an outrageous occurrence for government to put before this Legislative Assembly a bill like this, which gives control to the ministry exclusively and takes away current practice from teachers and school districts — that set professional development priorities and create the programs that happen — without even talking to them. I said at an earlier stage of debate, or earlier in this stage of debate, that the ministry doesn’t know what it’s doing in this regard.

Anybody who is more than a casual observer of the Ministry of Education right now will know that there is no capacity in the Ministry of Education to take on the new responsibilities that it’s awarding itself. This is a brave new bold experiment for which there are disastrous consequences around every corner, if we imagine what life will be like for the teaching profession and for all of us who interact with the public education system in a post–Bill 11 world. We don’t want to go there.

This legislation does need a very thorough examination and a second look, and it needs the input from those who teach for a living or those who think about teaching as part of their academic careers, those who know something about it. Not to put the Minister of Education down, because I’m sure he knows a lot about a lot of different things, but he is not a teacher. He is not based in the classroom, obviously, and he shouldn’t be giving himself and his ministry sole and complete control over the future development of our teachers. It’s a responsibility they can’t handle, that they’re not equipped to do, and Bill 11 could do that.

Now, he promises — the Minister of Education — that there’ll be a slow iteration, after the bill is rammed through, that consults with teachers and every relevant affected party about what the regulations will look like, to fill in the scaffolding of this bill. But really, is this government in any position to ask for such a leap of faith, to ask for such a massive quantity of trust in it after all it has done to public education over the last decade?

Do I need to pile up all the broken promises that this government has made to those who rely upon our school system? I can just go through a few from the last several months.

We heard the government had it all under control and that schools would be open on September 2. Then we find out that they didn’t even bargain last summer. Oh, they bargained once in August, as this thing came off the rails. “Oh, Vince Ready wasn’t available to mediate.” Yes, Mr. Ready was able to mediate, and in fact, by the third week of September he was the only thing that saved this government from themselves. You couldn’t trust a word they said during what eventually became the longest school disruption in B.C. history. What a moniker for this government to wear.
[ Page 7972 ]

Then we heard from the Minister of Education time and time again that the government would fully fund the cost of the teachers’ settlement. “Don’t worry about it. This government’s got it.” That was last fall.

Then we have a budget tabled this February, and it becomes very clear that fully funded suddenly means a $55 million cut for so-called administrative savings. Now we’re being asked to take his word after all of these broken promises after broken promises. And I’m just going back nine months. I could go back 12 years if you’d like.

[1515]

Now we’re being asked to give them blank-cheque legislation where, like a sword of Damocles, it’s dangled over the heads of teachers — the future of their profession and who controls its development and determination. You’ve got to be out of your mind. There’s not a single teacher in the province of British Columbia that would give such a licence to this government after their record and their treatment towards them.

For all of those who aren’t professional teachers but are British Columbians who appreciate and understand how powerful a force public education is for the economic and social development of this province, we should be concerned too.

There is a common denominator out there amongst industrialized countries and those that are seeing dramatic improvement in their education system and who seek, where they have very good education systems, to do even better. The common denominator is this: the fundamental effort that progressive jurisdictions make in education today, in the 21st century, is in their teachers. It’s in their labour force. It’s in the professional skills of those who are entrusted to boost the learning outcomes of our kids.

That makes a lot of sense. That’s where the emphasis should be. I wish it were the case in British Columbia.

We’ve got lots of nice-sounding words in the B.C. education plan of this government. We’ve got lots of speeches from the minister himself about the move towards individualized education and what a 21st-century education looks like. But we have something that is completely regressive here in Bill 11 when it comes to the teaching profession.

Instead of giving more autonomy to teachers — as we have seen in those countries I’ve just referred to — as the means to improve teacher satisfaction with their jobs, as the means to motivate them to continually challenge themselves to become better at what they do, which requires autonomy in and of itself…. Instead of trusting them, they’re asking teachers, who have been betrayed time and time again, to trust them to be responsible for what teacher professional development looks like in British Columbia. That isn’t going to work.

What we need to do is to hear from them. Teachers should have been consulted way before Bill 11 ever got to this place, way before. Now that opportunity has been squandered and betrayed as well.

Now we offer a lifeline, through this motion, to do what should have been done. Let’s allow teachers to have their say. Let’s give them an opportunity to speak directly to legislators of both parties about their ideas for what professional development should look like, including ideas to reform the legislation that governs their profession, if that’s what they want to talk about. Make it no-holds-barred. Make it about the priorities they wish to share with MLAs. That would be something worth doing.

It may result in government later withdrawing Bill 11. It should, but I’ll set aside a prejudgment on that right now this afternoon and just say: give us the venue to have the conversation. That’s what’s important. That’s what’s been missing in Bill 11, and that’s what the Select Standing Committee on Education could do.

By the way, it’s a statement in and of itself that this committee actually hasn’t met since 2007. I was on the committee the last time it met. We did a comprehensive, wide-ranging report on adult literacy. It was at that point one of the…. I’m trying to remember what the term was. I think it was the golden goals of the great and glorious decade or something like that. We were to become “the most literate jurisdiction,” bar none, in the world, if I’m quoting it accurately.

A number of MLAs — obviously, a government majority and a minority of opposition MLAs — did travel the province. We did hear from the most engaged experts from around the world. We kept the cost down because we did it by video conference and all those sorts of things.

We went to communities where adult education and literacy programs were actually delivered. We went to the northeast of the province. We went to the northwest. We went to the Interior. We went to cities like Victoria and, of course, in the Lower Mainland.

We were able to make recommendations to government. We were able to do consultation work that was critically important before the strategy was written. How refreshing.

[1520]

We’ve done this before. Now we face a challenge around professional development, if government wants to focus on this, where we can use a committee of the Legislative Assembly, as other jurisdictions do — they don’t just park them and put them to bed — and actively engage citizens and travel the province as well. Meet with teachers who, in communities that are predominantly aboriginal, may have a whole bunch of professional development priorities that are completely different than, say, in Surrey.

Then we can go to Surrey, and we can talk to teachers about how they are able to manage classrooms and involve parents and families in students’ education where a majority of their students don’t come from backgrounds where English is the first language in the home.

Or we can go to other districts in regions of the province where there are challenging rates of unemploy-
[ Page 7973 ]
ment and communities in decline, where you have small classrooms but you have kids from, in some cases, three or four different grade levels all in the same classroom because of economic necessity and because of population scale.

Very different teaching experiences, very different sets of professional priorities and supports are required, but they’re perspectives that should be known to members of this House, both sides. They’re voices that should be heard by the Minister of Education, but he didn’t bother to give them that opportunity. It’s an opportunity that we can make now, here, this afternoon.

I said earlier in the debate that this bill goes too far, too fast. I believe that even more now, after the Supreme Court decision and what the Premier had said, the olive branch she’s put out there to teachers, and after the recent annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees Association, where there was a universal, I believe, unanimous condemnation of Bill 11 and a call for its withdrawal on the sections that relate to upsetting the apple cart on governance as it’s been known for the last four decades.

All of these reasons aren’t just points of concern for the opposition side of the House. They shouldn’t be, even if we’re the only ones speaking to them at this stage of the debate. They should be of concern to members opposite. I can’t imagine that the members opposite haven’t heard from elected trustees, some of whom may be even in the same political party as them. Who knows.

Last time I checked the Surrey school board, not a lot of card-carrying New Democrats elected there. But you know what they do have? They have men and women elected in that board who care very much about their communities and are in touch with the school programs and the teachers. They support them, and they’re outraged by Bill 11, and they’ve told the minister that.

He’s not only the Minister of Education; he’s a constituency MLA in Surrey. This is the largest, fastest-growing district in the province, and they’ve had no input into Bill 11. It’s a huge impact on them.

You know what? I talked to the chair of the Surrey school board at that conference. I know that the minister couldn’t make it. They were outraged at a couple of comments this government had made recently. The first was after the budget, when $55 million of so-called administrative savings…. The Premier suggested: “Oh, that can be just done so easily. It’s low-hanging fruit.”

In Surrey they struggle to keep the lights on. They have a record number of portable classrooms that are the most expensive classroom resource you could deliver per square foot. They have tried to hire new teachers to keep up with the growing number of students year after year. Surrey was outraged, because their administrative costs are 2 percent — two cents on the education dollar.

Now, I would defy the Minister of Education to come into this House and speak to this motion and address it, if only that point — how he thinks his own district, Surrey, can lower its administrative overhead from 2 percent.

You know what Surrey school trustees are asking? They’re asking a different question. Government is pointing a finger at them. They’re looking at government’s performance recently, and they’re saying: “How can this government, buffoon-like, tell the school trustees collectively in B.C. they’ve got to find $55 million in cuts because the minister broke his promise to fully fund the teachers’ contract?”

[1525]

How can this government point a finger at them when they can’t even competently market and sell and have a process to dispose of land assets in a region that has the highest real estate values on the continent of North America, where they leave $43 million at least on the table of the appraised value of lots of property in the Burke Mountain area of Coquitlam? The government that’s saying you’ve got to cut $55 million is leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table that could be there for public education — ridiculous.

Now the Minister of Education wants a bill rammed through the House, without their input, that would give him the power to appoint a special adviser to them, say, if they wanted to sell some property in Surrey. What a farce. We’re going to have the government that bungled land sales in Coquitlam potentially appoint special advisers to tell Surrey and other school districts how they should dispose of assets efficiently — ridiculous, ill considered and costing this government, on a daily basis, credibility to speak with their elected partners in Surrey and other places.

We’re trying to help the minister recover from this error of the introduction of Bill 11. We’re trying to bring people who have an important role in public education and who are impacted by Bill 11…. We’re trying to get their voices into this debate. So far, at this point in time, it’s only the opposition that are speaking to this bill. The interest in it is huge around the province. We’re the only ones you have standing in this debate because we have a seat here on the floor of this chamber.

There are other people who want to participate in the debate, and the only way to allow them that voice is to have the Select Standing Committee on Education activated. Then we can invite witnesses. Both parties can negotiate. “Who do you want to hear from?” We can hear from superintendents. There are some superintendents who have received national and international awards whose voices would be vital to hear from.

We have faculties of education and heads of departments who have done a lot of thinking and have tons of experience who could tell this government not only about how its investment in teacher training could be done better but how professional development, period, through the lifetime and career of a teacher could be done better. That’s what they spend their days thinking about, and
[ Page 7974 ]
they’re not allowed to share those opinions with the minister at this point. He, so far, has shown that he’s got tunnel vision on Bill 11. He wants to push it through.

I don’t know if it’s his order that backbench members of his own party aren’t allowed to speak anymore, but they’re not saying anything. I have to wonder how a backbench MLA — whose phone number is published in the phone book, whose website is on line, who has been hearing from parents and trustees — can consider themselves a proper constituent representative and not give voice to the concerns that they’re getting.

I challenged the minister earlier in this stage of debate to produce one piece of paper, just one voice from his own community — one trustee, one professional teacher that he knows — to show that they support Bill 11, and he didn’t respond. I guess he doesn’t have one. I asked him to disclose how many hundreds of messages, written via e-mail submissions, that have been made against Bill 11 have been produced at this point in debate, and he wouldn’t answer that either.

We’re left to shadowbox against a government that introduces arrogant, comprehensive, sweeping changes to how education is governed going forward, and the government won’t even speak to or defend its legislation. Well, let’s have a special committee, then. Then we’ll hear from MLAs — won’t we? — on both sides of the House. Then we’ll hear from the public. Then we’ll hear from qualified expert witnesses who can give this government the kinds of policy advice that it ought to be receiving and acting upon, that can give some direction.

What we’re seeing is a complete lack of vision here from the other side. There are the wrong priorities going forward. I would be more than happy and members on the opposition side would be thrilled to see the government announce….

[1530]

We hear from the minister all the time. He says we’ve got a great school system. Let’s figure out how we can make education reform work for everybody and hear from everybody in British Columbia. We haven’t heard that yet.

J. Rice: I rise today to speak to the motion that’s before us: “That…Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015…be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Education, and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.” Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this and speak to Bill 11.

The reason I support this motion is it’s rushed legislation, and it deserves further study. This committee, even though it hasn’t met since 2007, allows for that. This legislation lacks any legitimacy because it has failed to consult those that it impacts — key education stakeholders like elected school boards and professional teachers, all who oppose Bill 11. The committee would allow for consultation.

B.C. lawmakers should welcome this opportunity to hear from those the minister ignored in his drafting of this bill. Professional teachers, experts on teacher professional development, elected board members, superintendents, secretary-treasurers and others all have something to offer in this discussion and should be allowed to do so.

I want to start with noting that we have extraordinary teachers in this province of British Columbia. I’d like to acknowledge the school districts that I represent in North Coast. School district 50 in Haida Gwaii, which actually is an example of extraordinary teachers, support workers and counsellors. In school district 50, between Masset and Port Clements, we have a school counsellor who works a 0.4 position and serves three schools. This is an area of the province with high suicide rates. This counsellor is running herself ragged serving these communities, serving these school districts, and I just wanted to acknowledge the outstanding service that she provides.

I’d like to acknowledge school district 52, in Prince Rupert; school district 49, Central Coast; and 82, the Coast Mountains — school districts that I represent in North Coast, all which are doing an extraordinary job with limited resources in a remote and rural part of our province.

What an incredible opportunity we could be faced with: British Columbians being able to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve education to make it exceptional in the province of British Columbia. Instead, we have Bill 11 before us.

This bill is moving too far and too fast. What it represents is rushed legislation and thus I support the motion before us to refer this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Education. It’s the very least we should be doing after just getting through the longest public education disruption in the history of British Columbia.

Our Premier said at the end of that disruption that when all is said and done, it’s “time to heal.” I thought this meant we were going to seek peace around public education. Bill 11 is certainly not allowing for healing. It’s quite the contrary, in fact. So once again we are standing in this House and talking about education.

Realistically, we’re talking about attacks on the public education system that have been going on for over a decade. Rather than ensuring that our schools, our teachers, our support workers, our administrators, our parents, our elected school trustees and our students have the resources that they need to succeed. This government, instead, continues to launch attacks on public education.

The B.C. Liberal government is saying their intention is to provide some sort of clarity and pragmatism. Then they’re asking us to trust them with this. Hence, so much of this bill is defined through regulation and not discussed with stakeholders at all or debated properly even in this Legislature.

[1535]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what it is that this government is trying to get at with Bill 11. It targets four areas: “building a framework for continuing professional development, facilitating delivery of shared services among school districts, updating the accountability framework for student learning through reporting, and aligning the provisions on the disclosure of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

Some of these words sound very — well, shall I say? — nice. They make it sound like this is good legislation. But when we dive in and look at the details, it’s a different story.

The first issue, building a framework of continuing professional development, is essentially giving the minister the ability to impose his professional development on teachers — his ideas. Where else and with what other professional body would a minister dictate what a professional body should undertake? Big Brother…. I mean, the Minister of Education knows best?

Facilitating delivery of shared services among school districts. What this means is to, essentially, give the minister the power to compel school districts to take part in shared services whether that makes sense or not. In school district 52 they are already partaking in shared services, and it’s proven successful. But there’s no need to legislate that decision. It works for them, but in other school districts it may not work so well. It may be even a poor financial decision overall.

The third idea of change in this legislation is updating the accountability framework for student learning through reporting. When you read it more closely, we are looking at loosening restrictions on gathering information about our students — loosening, not strengthening. In 2015 — in an age of needing more protection of our identification, our personal and privacy information — we are going to be less prudent in protecting children’s rights?

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

I’d like to just address some of the issues that our stakeholders have identified. The amendments in this bill further centralizes government control over education. Despite their commitment to co-governance with school boards, the government is unilaterally giving authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects to improve student performance.

Despite promises of a new beginning following the end of the longest job action in the history of B.C., the government failed to consult with teachers on the proposed changes to professional development. Other professions have control over their own professional development. This government’s refusal to even consult on professional development shows lack of respect for teachers.

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

Before I conclude, I wanted to share with you some of the comments that stakeholders have identified.

Deputy Speaker: I am assuming the member is doing that in the context of what the committee may hear should the bill be referred to the committee, as we’re currently debating the motion to refer the bill to a committee. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the member that that’s the case.

J. Rice: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Again, I stress the need for referring this to the Select Standing Committee on Education, for the need to have a robust discussion on the issues and the contents of Bill 11 that are proven to be so unfavourable to many stakeholders.

[1540]

Prince George. School district 57 trustee Sharel Warrington has called the changes under Bill 11 significant and worrisome. “It’s very concerning, and its implications we really won’t know until we’ve had a real good chance to look at what it means for the board governance, what it means for board autonomy, what it means in a lot of ways.”

You’ve heard a lot of other members quote Patti, of course. We have to identify such an icon in public education: Patti Bacchus. She’s concerned that changes regarding administrative directives may be about forcing school boards to sell off land. That’s an area where we’ve had a lot of pressure verbally from government, an encouragement to get rid of, as they say, “capacity.”

This sort of pressure to privatize, to sell off public assets and to private lands…. We see a bit of that with this government, and I’m concerned that they’ll be pushing harder on that.

Lastly, I’d just like to quote Vancouver school board chair Christopher Richardson. He said that the bill seems to rearrange where the minister’s powers are written in the legislation, that he’s reshuffling the chairs of the Titanic. I think that’s such a good quote. It really summarizes the challenges that we’re facing here.

I would just like to say that I respectfully request the government to immediately refer this bill, Bill 11, to the Select Standing Committee on Education and allow for a thoughtful and productive dialogue between the government, teachers and boards of education about the challenges facing our educational system.

It is through this dialogue that any legislative requirements required can be fleshed out to further offer a sustainable public education system.

H. Bains: It is always a pleasure to stand and participate in debates that not only affect what goes on here but affect our future, our communities. This bill is one of those.
[ Page 7976 ]

I was reading through and thinking that when these pieces of legislation come before us, there must be a process. There must be some consultation. There must be some need identified by somebody that this change is needed.

As I read through all the different conversations that are going on, different people commenting on this, I find no one coming forward to suggest that this change was needed. So who asked for this? And what’s the purpose behind this? It is a real question. Is it just the government agenda that started, I believe, in 2002-2003 to pick a fight with teachers and that continues on?

I think, as many speakers before me have said…. I support the amendment that is being proposed by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers saying that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Education and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

As the old saying goes, the sober second thought…. I think that is what we are talking about here. I understand that when somebody is displaying their leadership qualities and leadership aspirations, they think that they must be a decision-maker, that they’ve got to make a decision. But the good quality of a leader is also to have a sober second thought — to have that capacity — for good reasons.

[1545]

Here is a piece of legislation that is before us. No one is owning up to it. My biggest surprise is this. The Minister of Education represents one of the ridings in Surrey: Surrey-Fleetwood. When you hear the comments made by the Surrey school district, district 3 — those elected school board trustees — you would think that this government is working in a vacuum, that no one consulted them, no one consulted the teachers, no one consulted anyone, except that we see this bill before us. And we are to rush through this, as the government would like us to do, and say yes to it.

I think this amendment makes sense, and we’ve got to take a look. What are the implications if you rush through this bill? I’ve seen it in the last ten years — some of the bills that went through when they were pushed through in a rushed manner. The consequences were not very good. They had to sometimes come back and change the legislation that they originally thought was a great piece of legislation.

Here’s another example. As I said, the government started this process of: “We know the best. We have all the answers. We own the monopoly on good ideas. We don’t have to listen to nobody. We’ll tell you what is right for you.” That attitude started in 2002-2003 when Bill 28 and 29 were brought in. This process continues on. I think this bill is a reflection of that.

At a time when the government is talking about co-governance with school boards, rather than going through what they preached…. It’s not just the teachers now. Now they are going after the school board trustees as well. The government is going to tell them what is good for them. They’re going to tell the trustees how to run their school boards. They’re going to tell them how to manage their affairs.

That is not what the intended purpose behind creating school boards was in the first place. The school boards were created to identify the uniqueness of vast British Columbia. You move from region to region. There are vast differences. We’re going through population growth, and the demographics are changing all the time.

I think if you give independence to the school board trustees, they understand the uniqueness of their region. Accordingly, they will make policies that reflect those differences. To say to them: “We are going to centralize all those decision-making processes in the minister’s office….”

They’re not even telling us because much of this is going to be in regulations. Nobody knows what powers the minister is going to have other than what…. They’re just vaguely put in this bill. So it is dangerous. It is a dangerous, dangerous direction to go, and for what purpose? What purpose will it serve? I don’t see any reason — what purpose it will serve.

Let’s take a look at what this bill is doing. They are talking about building a framework for continuing professional development, giving it to the minister to impose professional development on teachers. You think he’ll try that on lawyers? The Law Society? Never. You think he’ll try that on doctors? Never. You think he’ll try that on engineers? All those self-governing bodies? No, they will not do that. Why teachers?

That question always is going to be there. Like I said, I have my hunches. It started in 2002-2003, and they haven’t stopped. And now they’re adding trustees into it. I think this attitude of, “We know the best. We’ll tell you what it right for you,” is not going to serve the purpose.

After all, it’s not just the teachers, not the trustees that are being hampered in doing their job as they are qualified to do. It is what they do that will be affected. What they do is deliver educational services to our students. They will be affected. That has to be central to any decision-making when we talk about education policies.

[1550]

It is the students whose education will be affected — negatively, I might add. Have they thought through this? I don’t think so. That’s why this amendment makes sense. Let’s go back. Let’s give that committee a mandate to revisit this and listen to all those stakeholders, those professionals who we put our trust in for our children’s education. They are our future, and their interests must be first and foremost when we are talking about policies surrounding our education system. This bill does not do that. It does not do that.
[ Page 7977 ]

Centralizing decision-making powers in a vast province like this is not a good idea, to begin with. Rushing through will be even worse. That’s why referring this to a select standing committee makes sense.

That’s one area — that the teachers cannot determine what their professional development will look like. The minister can impose professional development on teachers. That is undermining their ability, undermining their credibility, undermining the work that they do. That’s not the right thing to do at a time when they are talking about co-governance with school boards and teachers and working together.

The second part is facilitating the delivery of shared services among school districts, giving the minister the power to compel school districts to take part in shared services. Let’s take a look at the Surrey school board — the largest district in the province, over 72,000 students. They, in themselves, are a province. You put together so many students in one district…. They already are doing the work, as they talk about a co-sharing of the services.

If there were 5,000 students here, 2,000 there, 1,000 there, and you put them all together, it may make sense. But a 72,000-student school district? They’re already doing that. When they’re so large, what else can they share? If we rush through this bill, that is going to be overlooked. I don’t think we should do that.

Also, updating the accountability framework for student learning through reporting. I’ll talk about this a little more in detail. Again, they just rushed through. It’s an ill-thought-out piece of legislation. There’s no way that we should be rushing through, and that’s why it makes a lot of sense to refer it to that committee.

Aligning the provisions of the disclosure of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Again, there are other jurisdictions who are working to strengthen that area, but this government is making it much, much looser. That’s not going to be the right thing.

The issues that are being raised here are these. Further, this bill, if we allow this to go through and we don’t pass this amendment…. That’s why there’s a need to seriously look at this amendment and pass that amendment.

This bill further centralizes government control over education. That’s not the way you run a democracy — if you centralize all the decision-making powers. Again, especially and despite their commitment to co-governance with the school board, the government is now, under this bill, unilaterally giving authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects to improve student performance.

Again, despite promises of new beginnings following the end of the longest job action in B.C. history, the government failed to consult with teachers on the proposed changes to their professional development. Other professionals, like I said before, have control over their own professional development. This government’s refusal to even consult on professional development shows the lack of respect for teachers.

Clearly, it’s not the bill that is going to do anything to improve the education services to our students. It just further alienates the service providers, the government and all the other stakeholders from the decision-making process.

[1555]

Then, again, also the student information — what can be shared, what cannot be shared. There are jurisdictions that are strengthening the protections around student information and data gathering. This bill loosens the restrictions on shared student or personal information — likely to facilitate the implementation of MyEducation B.C.

School planning councils have been eliminated, as has the superintendent of achievement. Now there will be a new superintendent of appeals to deal with section 11 appeals.

Section 12 of this bill appears to give the minister authority over the custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. This authority now rests with school boards.

When you really look at it in a nutshell, the minister, through this bill, is telling the school board trustees: “Your electorate has elected you. You have the responsibility to deliver those educational services to the students in your district. But I’m going to tell you what is good for you, how to run your district.” It just clearly undermines those very capable trustees who came forward, stepped forward to get into public life in order to make things better for our students.

I just want to say thank you to my school board trustees for coming forward and doing a good job and also for telling this minister that this decision is not the right decision. I want to thank Terry Allen, Garry Thind, Shawn Wilson, Gary Tymoschuk, Laurie Larsen, Laurae McNally, Bob Holmes. I think all those folks are very, very dedicated people. They want to make changes for the better. They don’t want to be dictated to by some centralized authority on how to do their job.

Many of these people have years, if not decades, of work being activists, attending school board meetings year after year and month after month in order to put suggestions on behalf of the parents, on behalf of the students. These are dedicated, very well respected school board trustees in Surrey school district. I say to them: “Thank you for stepping forward to be in a position that you are in and, also, for telling this government what is wrong with this bill.”

I will now go to the letter that they have written to the minister. I’ll read it for the record. This is an April 24, 2015, letter. They say:

“Dear hon. Minister,

“At its 24th of April, 2015, public meeting the board of education, school district 36, Surrey, unanimously adopted the following motion:

“That the board of education, school district 36, Surrey, ask government to immediately rescind Bill 11 and allow for a thoughtful
[ Page 7978 ]
and productive dialogue between the government and the boards of education about the challenges facing our educational system and about any legislative changes required to promote equality and a sustainable public education system.”

I think that’s exactly what we’re talking about here. This amendment will allow that to happen. It will allow them to work with the recommendations that came from Surrey school board trustees.

They went on to say, and I might finish this:

“We believe that the introduction of Bill 11 is neither reflective of our relationship with the Ministry of Education nor with the spirit of a co-governance relationship as outlined in the BCSTA agreement. We believe that as stewards of Surrey schools, we have been strong, consistent and capable governors.”

I couldn’t agree more.

“We need to bring reliability and sustainability to the province’s education system. This can only be accomplished through a thoughtful and collaborative process. The board of education has a strong reputation that has been built up over many years. We are indeed concerned that the sections of Bill 11 that pave the way to forcing boards into projects through administrative directives will erode our authority to make local decisions.

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

It’s cc’d to the minister, MLAs of Surrey, trustees and executives.

[1600]

Clearly, I can speak on behalf of these trustees. The Surrey school district is probably the best-run school district in the province. When you look at their administrative costs and you look at the education deliveries and the decisions they make, despite the fact that they are handcuffed by continuous downloading by this government, they do one heck of a job, and I say thank-you to them.

I think what was needed here today…. The minister, being from Surrey, knows the challenges that our students and parents face in Surrey. What are the priorities in Surrey?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The priorities are to have more classrooms added to the school district. We have close to 7,000 students in portables. They are more expensive to run. The cost to operate them is $4½ million a year. That is money that comes out of the operation of the school district, money that would be needed for education services, the in-class education services. So it’s taken out. Can you imagine what they could get for $4½ million when it comes to adding services to students?

So 7,000 students. If you put things in perspective, that would make it the 27th largest — the portable population alone — school district in this province.

That is the area where the minister should be concentrating, not picking a fight with teachers, picking a fight with school board trustees, telling them what is good for them. He needs to sit down with the school board trustees in Surrey and develop a plan, the kind of capital plan we need. They will help him. They have done their homework. They will simply share the information that they have: how we can move forward as far as the additional capital plans are concerned, where we have classrooms that are overcrowded.

In fact, it was the students… Have you ever heard of students in high schools walking out of their classrooms to make a point, to tell the minister that we need real classrooms? Earl Marriot School, which is in the constituency of my good friend, the member for Surrey–White Rock. He was there with me, standing with the students, supporting them, to say: “Yes, you are right. You deserve to have real classrooms. You deserve to have the best education that you can get in British Columbia.” That wasn’t the only school. Lord Tweedsmuir was another school where students had to walk out to make a point.

Over the years the ad hoc committee was created, made up of parents, teachers, the Surrey Board of Trade, the city council. All of them, through consultation with the school board trustees, lobbied this government over the years on the lack of space that we have in the school district. It was their work that they did.

They advised everyone that since 2006 not a penny of extra capital was approved by this government for Surrey school district — not a penny. All the projects that came after 2006 were the result of capital plans that were approved prior to 2006. Then two years ago the previous Minister of Education went to Surrey and said: “There’s a capital plan for the province. You will get part of that.”

They were given…. Or at least the announcement was made that they would get about one-third of the capital plan that they were announcing for the province. That goes to deal with about 30 percent of the needs of Surrey.

We are growing at a rate of 1,000 new citizens every month in Surrey. More students are coming. The parents aren’t just coming by themselves. They bring children with them.

[1605]

We need more space. By the time these schools are built, we will have more space crises and classroom crises in Surrey. We need that investment now so that schools can start to build and we can have these students in real classrooms in the next four or five years.

Again, they missed the opportunity. Rather than talking about the constructive and real issues of Surrey, the minister, without even consulting school board trustees, without consulting the parents, without consulting anybody in Surrey…. He is from Surrey. That is so shocking that he would come here and give us a surprise with this kind of bill. That is so disappointing.

Let me talk about some of the other programs that the school board trustees are not able to deliver.

We have close to 40 percent of the population of Surrey that are South Asians. In the 1990s the government at that time brought in legislation allowing Punjabi and Chinese to be taught as regular curriculum in the regular classrooms in order for the students to save their culture,
[ Page 7979 ]
to know about their culture and learn their language in regular classrooms.

Now, because of all the downloading that is going on and because of lack of space, the school board trustees and the district superintendent, even though they want to deliver these services, cannot. There are students, there are parents who are asking the school board to have more Punjabi classes in many schools, but they’re not able to deliver because there is no space. French immersion, same thing. There are thousands of students on the waiting list. They cannot provide that service, even though they would like to.

When you look at the government trying to tell school board trustees how to run their boards, it’s astonishing when you look at their own history here. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake mentioned a few of those areas. They are the ones who, with the appraised value of $6 million in Burke Mountain, sold the property for $100,000. And they are going to tell the school board trustees how to dispose of their assets? It just does not make sense.

There are so many other things. For example, let’s go into some of the other concerns that are being raised by many different organizations. Let’s look at the B.C. School Trustees Association and what they have to say.

April 20, 2015: letter to the Minister of Education. They passed a motion. They are saying:

“Dear Mr. Minister,

“At our annual general meeting this past weekend the membership of the B.C. School Trustees Association passed the following three motions in regard to Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

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

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

“(3) That BCSTA demand an immediate review of the intent of Bill 11 legislation and an opportunity to recommend amendments prior to final adoption, as well as the formation of a management partners’ working group to participate in the development of any subsequent process or resulting regulations.”

The amendment proposed by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers will…. If I could convince the members from the government side to vote in favour of this amendment, then the government will have an opportunity to do what the BCSTA is asking.

[1610]

You need some time. You need to give the select standing committee an opportunity to listen to many of the different opinions that are being supressed here.

I want to talk about Delta school district also. They are saying, again: Delta school board met on April 21, 2015, and discussed the recently introduced Bill 11. “Delta trustees expressed concern that consultation as set out in the co-governance relationship memorandum of understanding did not take place in the development of this legislation.”

Again, here’s an opportunity for the minister to listen to what’s being said so that we could give this committee an opportunity. The committee, then, will have an opportunity to invite consultation, invite opinions. Then we would have a bill, after that consultation, that would actually reflect the wishes of parents and school board trustees and that, at the end of the day, actually would work towards improving the in-class education of our children. That should be first and foremost of any piece of policy, and that is being proposed here. I think this amendment will do that.

I just want to say to the minister and to the government members: this is our opportunity — don’t lose it — to have a sober second look at this bill so that it will give the opportunity to all stakeholders. The stakes are too high. It is about the education of our children. It is about the future of our province. These are the people. The children are the future leaders. They will be the ones who will be in a decision-making process. They will be the ones in place to run this country. We need to be working toward improving their ability.

K. Conroy: I’m happy to take my opportunity to rise to speak to the amendment my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers put in: “That Bill (No. 11) intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Education, and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.”

I believe this is a way to ensure that the proper discussion happens when all the issues and the concerns being raised can be discussed in a more fulsome manner. I’ve sat on a number of select standing committees since I’ve been elected in 2005. I’ve presented to some in the past, prior to 2005. I was always impressed with the opportunity to listen to the concerns or the presentations of those who took the time to come and present to our committee.

The first Health Committee that we had here just after we were elected in 2005 was a great example of that. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano was the Chair of that committee. The committee dealt with obesity in children in this province. We had the opportunity to travel across the province to a number of communities throughout B.C. and hear what folks had to say on this issue.

Many of those people…. We were up in the north Peace country. We were in the Cariboo. They never would have been able to come down to Vancouver or Victoria to try to explain their concerns. We had presentations from students, children in high schools as well as elementary schools. They were actually able to ensure that their voices were heard, that the select standing committee actually heard their concerns.

As well, the committee on the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act — numerous presentations dealing with
[ Page 7980 ]
what’s working, what’s not working. I know from those presentations and from those hearings before the select standing committee that the minister of the day actually took some of those suggestions and reworked them into the actual act, which has to be looked at every ten years to ensure that it has been properly applied and looked at. It’s probably something that I think is coming due fairly quickly. The committee should be meeting soon again.

I know the same is happening now with the existing Health Committee, giving professionals, various groups, individuals, all involved or concerned with our health care system, an opportunity, a voice. They now have a committee to go to.

[1615]

It makes me think of the Dying with Dignity organization who did a presentation, I know, to the committee — a really pertinent subject right now in this country, stemming from the Supreme Court decision that was recently made. It had a place where people could go and have a voice. I think that’s what people are looking for. That’s what the amendment says.

I think the most recent committee I’m sitting on is actually very unique to this province: our agricultural committee, which is co-chaired by the members for Saanich South and Delta South. There’s something about strong women committed to agriculture from the south of our province, along with people from all across the province.

It’s been recognized wherever we go as a venue where people can come and express their concerns. They’re talking to us about ranching, food security, issues with the agricultural industries, organic agriculture, fruit farming — just everything across the province. People are coming and listening, and it’s ensuring that their voices are heard, ensuring that they have somebody that they can go to.

I thought it was interesting, actually, that we had more presentations at the agricultural committee in Williams Lake than the Select Standing Committee on Finance did. I thought that was an interesting point. It makes one beg the question: why wouldn’t the B.C. Liberals want to ensure that the very people who are concerned, who they promised to consult with…?

They actually promised to consult and collaborate with the very people that are concerned about this bill. Why wouldn’t the government want to ensure that that happens, that there’s a process for that to happen, that there’s an opportunity?

It makes one wonder what the government’s afraid of. Why wouldn’t they want to consult? It’s odd that the minister wouldn’t want to consult with people who really care about education, who are concerned about Bill 11 and what it’s bringing into the House.

I haven’t spoken with anybody, groups or individuals — we’ve spoken to people, got e-mails from people — who have said: “Oh, we don’t need to consult on this. The government’s got it right this time. We don’t want to express our concerns. We don’t need any input.” Everyone said just that: they want to be able to be consulted; they want to provide input.

It’s everyone that’s involved in the education system. It’s everybody from teachers to trustees to parents to administrators. Everyone has expressed concern about it.

I think the B.C. School Trustees Association, their letters of concern…. It just lays it out so well. It was interesting that this letter came from their annual general meeting, a meeting that I know my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake was able to attend and hear the concerns of trustees from across the province. It’s expensive to send people from all across the province down to Vancouver for meetings, and trustees from all over the province attended this meeting, came to the AGM to express their concerns and to say they wanted to be consulted. They wanted to be heard on this issue, on the issues arising from Bill 11.

My colleague was there to hear it. It’s unfortunate the minister responsible for education in this province couldn’t attend to hear those concerns.

The trustees did send a letter to the minister expressing their concerns. They laid their concerns out in three fairly succinct motions that I want to read into the record, because I think it’s really important that they’re on the record. They said:

“(1) that BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provision, and where shared service providers are designated by the Minister of Education, and (2) that the BCSTA publicly advocate strongly against the erosion of local board of education autonomy in Bill 11, (3) that BCSTA demand an immediate review of the intent of Bill 11 legislation and an opportunity to recommend amendments prior to final adoption, as well as the formation of a management partners working group to participate in the development of any subsequent process or resulting regulations.”

What the amendment that my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers brought in…. It answers this. It gives the trustees an opportunity to go to a select standing committee and say: “These are our concerns. These are the issues that haven’t been addressed in this legislation.”

[1620]

The B.C. school trustees even talk about the fact that they felt that “contrary to the intent and spirit of our recently signed co-governance memorandum of understanding, the Ministry of Education did not engage boards in a broad-based consultation process prior to the tabling of this legislation.”

This is exactly what a select standing committee could do. It would give those folks from the BCSTA, the school trustees, the duly elected people, the people who were elected by citizens from all across this province — to go out and act on behalf of students in our communities, to be the elected officials, the people that know what’s best for what happens in those communities, out and about. It’s obvious that the B.C. School Trustees want to consult. They want to ensure that their voices are heard.
[ Page 7981 ]

Now, I get to know the trustees in my area, as we all do. I have three school districts that I work with. I’ve met with them, and I’ve talked with them. I’ve gotten e-mails from them. These are people who are committed. They have a passion for ensuring that the kids in our region get a good education, a really good education. They want to make sure that they can provide that, while giving an incredible amount of volunteer time. I notice. You see how many meetings they go to and the distances they cover.

In our area they’re not large school districts as far as children go — like my colleague from Surrey, when they talk about the large number of children in their districts — but ours are large geographically. Those have all kinds of different issues that need to be dealt with. I know these people…. Some drive for hours to get to their school board meetings. But they go to them because they care about them.

When I met with the folks in district 10, the trustees…. I sat and had a meeting with them in district 10. The school chair said to me that Bill 11 was a slap in the face to every trustee in this province. She said: “We have done our best.” The things they have done to try to make ends meet in school district 10 on the Arrow Lakes….

It’s a small district, but like I said, quite diverse geographically. They’ve shut down schools. They took the secretary-treasurer and the superintendent position, and they amalgamated it into one position. I mean, Terry’s fabulous. She’s an incredible woman, and she’s doing the job. But that’s what they’ve been doing to try to make sure that they can make ends meet.

To have a bill come in that says to them: “We’re going to tell you what kinds of services you have to share….” They are the ultimate school district for having worked through shared services. For a while there, they were sharing their financial services with school district 20. They had school district 20 doing all their financial services, and they saved money doing that. But then they recognized that if they brought it back into the district and, in fact, invested their funds into the local credit union, they would save even more money and be able to invest that back into their school system.

They’ve done other things. I mean, it’s amazing what they’ve done when it comes to shared services. They’ve realized efficiencies through WCB claims. Management shared services with school district 23, out of Vernon. They’ve also got a shared-services contract with human resources and labour relations support with the Okanagan Labour Relations Council. So they’re doing this.

Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if they could have gone to a select standing committee and shown the minister, shown the Ministry of Education: “Look, this is what we’re doing. This is what works in our district. This is what doesn’t work.” If they’d only had the opportunity to raise those concerns with the minister before he brought it into legislation.

District 20 — they’ve dealt with this in a very unique way, I think. They gathered together. They made sure…. They said: “Well, if we’re not going to get to consult with the ministry, if we’re not going to get a committee to go to — this bill has come out now — if we’re not going to have that opportunity, we’re going to consult with the people in our region, the people in our school district.” What they did is they got together the teachers, the school trustees, the parents, their CUPE colleagues.

They all got together, and they put an ad on the local radio stations. They recognized…. I want to quote Andy Davidoff. He’s the president of the Kootenay Columbia Teachers Union. He said:

“It is clear from the overwhelming support we received from these key education stakeholder groups that it is appropriate for all of us who are passionate about ensuring that our world-class public education system is not eroded any further to send this message to our government in response to its introduction of Bill 11.”

They went on to put this ad on the radio, and they’re getting amazing feedback. They’re getting feedback from parents and from people who don’t have kids in the school system, who are saying: “This is wrong. Children are our future.”

[1625]

Those people, too, would like to have an opportunity to consult with a select standing committee. I don’t know how many people I’ve run into — former teachers, retired teachers, grandparents, people who say they’re worried about what the school system is coming to. They’re worried about ensuring that their grandkids and kids….

At an event the other night I had a retired principal, actually, say he’s worried about the kids that he used to teach… Their kids are now all in the school system. In fact, he said that some of the kids he used to teach…. Their grandkids are in the school system, and he’s worried about them. He said that what Bill 11 has done is a concern to people, not just people who are directly involved in schools right now and in education but people across the province.

That’s what this ad has done in school district 20. It’s gotten people rallied up to say: “We want an opportunity to tell the minister, to tell the Premier that this is wrong, that Bill 11 is wrong. We want an opportunity to talk about autonomy for our school board.”

They feel their trustees know best what’s happening in our school districts. They know the nuances of a rural school district, of schools that could potentially be shut, of programs that work for kids in one community that might not work in another. We don’t have one community. Every school district of the three school districts I represent has different communities that they have to work with. They understand those nuances. Not everybody could understand that, working from Victoria. That’s a concern.

I think it’s interesting that so many people are saying: “We want to make sure that our issues, our concerns are heard. We want to make sure that not only the minister
[ Page 7982 ]
hears them but the Premier hears them and that they’re not bringing in, tabling this legislation that is going to be detrimental.” They feel it’s going to be very detrimental to the kids in their own areas.

School district No. 8, which, partially, I also represent — I share it with my colleague from Nelson-Creston — also sent a letter to the minister expressing their concerns. They wanted to consult. They wanted to have the opportunity to present to the minister, to say: “Why wouldn’t you want to hear how things are not working or are working for us here in district No. 8, the Kootenay Lake district?”

Quoting from their letter, their board sees Bill 11 as “yet another erosion of local governance and autonomy and a further undermining of the very foundation of public education in this province.” And they quote again: “not only failing to consult with boards of education but also by not considering input from those closest to our children in our classrooms. Parents, teachers, school administration and support staff deserve a meaningful voice in the decision-making process.”

Again, more people saying: “We should have the opportunity to provide input. We should have the opportunity because we know what’s happening.” They’re saying: “As the front-line providers of education, local boards of education have much knowledge and expertise for the provincial government to draw upon in the coming weeks. For the sake and well-being of public education, we believe it is imperative that we have a meaningful voice in the decision-making process.”

It’s interesting that every one of the three school districts that are represented in my constituency all expressed the same concerns, all saying that they feel that the legislation was rushed in, that there wasn’t appropriate consultation, that there needs to be more consultation to ensure that the issues around Bill 11 that people are concerned about get discussed.

They feel that this legislation lacks legitimacy because it didn’t get the input. It didn’t get…. It’s like Big Brother is just giving you his input, and that’s the way it’s going to be. “Now we’ve taken away autonomy from school boards.”

A committee would allow for consultation — a committee, as suggested by my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers. It’s just not teachers or school trustees or superintendents, secretary-treasurers. Parents have also expressed concerns, and they’re very concerned about what’s happening in this province.

My gosh, DPACs and parent advisory committees have some of the strongest voices when it comes to ensuring that there’s good, quality education for the kids in the district. I mean, it’s their own kids.

[1630]

You meet with those parent groups, and there are some passionate people that speak out about what’s happening in the school district. The DPAC from Kootenay Lake, school district No. 8, wanted consultation, too, which is exactly what the standing committee would have given.

They said: “This legislation severely inhibits the participation of parents, trustees and teachers in the delivery of public education and increases the power of those farthest away from the students.” They also felt it stifled the voice of parents. Then they say: “Consultation after the fact does not equate with involvement during the process.” That’s pretty definitive.

All they’re saying is involvement during the process. They’re asking the minister to put it on hold, to give them an opportunity to provide the input that they feel should be given. The fact that they’re Kootenay Lake…. They have Creston. It’s part of the Slocan Valley and the Nelson area. Those parents have as much right to have input into their children’s education system as any parent in the province. But like I had said before, with rural people it’s harder to get down to Victoria to meet with the minister. It’s harder to ensure your voice is heard, whereas the standing committees go out. They go out and meet with people and hear what they have to say.

It’s interesting. I actually sit on the Education Committee. I don’t believe we’ve ever met. We’ve never been brought together. I don’t even think there’s a Chair. No, there’s not. We’ve never had a meeting even to elect a Chair. It just shows that here is an opportunity. Here is a vehicle in the legislation that could be utilized for input, for discussion, to ensure people have a voice. I think that that’s really critical.

It’s interesting the number of school districts that have sent letters, have expressed their concerns. I was talking with the member for Delta South about her school district, and she spoke with pride of how her school district stood up. They were one of the first people to send a letter right away, expressing their concern and talking about them being a democratically elected safeguard to the resources of their district on behalf of constituents.

That is being lost in this bill. That has been lost in the fact that we were looking at these trustees and not saying to them: “You worked hard to get elected. You were elected because people in your community felt that you represented their voice.” That’s gone.

The Delta board of education also advocated for withdrawing the provisions of Bill 11. An opportunity should be created for trustees to work with the Minister of Education in the spirit envisioned by the memorandum of understanding that everybody has been talking about. “We could consult and co-construct new legislation that will enable us to work together as co-governance partners, respecting the mandates given by our constituents and providing our communities with benefit of the local representation in meeting the needs of our students while supporting the broader goals of a strong public education system for our province.”

Those words resonate with people. People are clamouring for the word “consult.” Co-governance. Where
[ Page 7983 ]
is the co-governance now? They were there back in December. Everybody was signing on to it. “Oh yeah, we’ll co-govern with you. It’s going to be the best thing that’s ever going happen in the education system in this province. We’re going to work together.” The first thing that happens, in comes Bill 11. There’s no co-governance. There’s no consultation. Where is the promise? The promise is not there at all.

The board of school district No. 46 from the Sunshine Coast are extremely dismayed at the lack of consultation prior to this bill and specifically at the changes in scope and authority that the bill gives to the Minister of Education. Another district.

My colleague from the Sunshine Coast knows full well that these trustees are hard-working trustees and that they want the opportunity to consult. It just doesn’t make….

[1635]

People are angry about it. People are frustrated, especially when you hear the Premier and the minister go off about how we’re going to have this great era of working together within our schools, and that’s just not happening.

School district 81 up in Fort Nelson. Maybe the member who represents Fort Nelson will be able to get up and agree with his colleagues that are school trustees, because I know he was cc’d on this letter. They also say: “The current trend towards less consultation with districts and increased centralization of authority with the ministry and your office, Minister, has eroded our ability to execute our role.”

There again is another school district…. Up north they’re probably hoping that the member for Peace River North will get out and talk about the concerns that are being expressed up there.

I know that when we went to the Peace River country, when we were on the Standing Committee on Health, there were excellent presentations. I remember the students being so excited that they could actually present to a legislative committee. Then they saw their work at the presentation, when it was put in the report that was published afterwards. They said, “We would never have this opportunity,” because they’d never be able to come to Victoria. The cost of people coming from Fort Nelson down to Victoria is incredible.

There were a number of students that presented to the select standing committee. Why wouldn’t students also want to present to a select standing committee on issues that are being raised in Bill 11 when it affects them? It affects their future. We get some profound young people coming to talk about the issues, and they shouldn’t be denied. They shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to talk about what’s really important to them. I can’t imagine how frustrated they are. We know how frustrated the school trustees are, and the parents and the teachers.

You know, teachers are also saying: “You need to consult.” Teachers have thought, after the most divisive labour disruption in the history of the province, I think…. The fact is that everybody was told: “Okay, now we’re going to have labour peace. We’re going to have education peace. There are not going to be any more issues.” For the teachers to see this bill, Bill 11, which takes away…. Just to quote the Teachers Federation, the act is an “incursion into teacher-led and -directed professional development.”

Why would a ministry decide that…? I watch what the teachers do in our different school districts. They work together to try to provide the best professional development opportunities they can afford. That’s one of the other issues. School districts have got to look for the low-hanging fruit, and one of the low-hanging fruits, unfortunately, is professional development.

I know that in district 20 they’ve had some of the best professional development over the years. The ministry has actually used some of the people from district 20 to go and do professional development in other school districts. They’ve got them to go out and share their wealth, share their expertise.

Now we’re being told that this is going to come from Victoria or from somewhere else. Teachers work hard to ensure that their professional development is in direct relation, direct correlation to the kids in their classrooms. They look at who they’re teaching — who is involved, who has what needs — and they go and get that training.

It’s like the teachers’ ed. I know that all of the people in CUPE that are teacher assistants…. They sit and decide which of the issues they need to be looking at, that they need more training in. They go and get that training, and they work with the teachers on it. Why would we take that away? Why would legislation be brought in that would say: “Okay, now we know what’s best for you. We’re going to provide this. Too bad, so sad”? I think that that’s basically what they’re saying.

I know that the BCTF works very, very hard to ensure that their teachers get the calibre of professional development that they need. Every profession continues to learn. I mean, you never stop learning. If you stop learning, then you’re probably not with us anymore. But you should never stop learning.

When I watched the teachers over the years…. I’ve been involved in the school system now with my own children and now my grandchildren. You watch the commitment those teachers have to ensuring the best level of care, the best level of education for the kids in their classrooms.

[1640]

They work hard to ensure that they get the best professional development opportunities possible. It was interesting that the B.C. Teachers Federation stood up for education with a broad brush. They talked about how the act is an infringement on the rights and responsibilities of democratically elected boards of education. They talked about the privacy protections for students — which is
[ Page 7984 ]
a real concern — the centralization of power and how it would create an unnecessary increase in government bureaucracy.

You have to ask: why would we want more bureaucracy in the ministry, which takes away direct funding to the education of our children and grandchildren in this province? Why would we want that? Why would they not want to do what my colleague has suggested — to go out and to ensure that we can have a select standing committee on education?

A select standing committee that’s already there — it only needs to be convened. The members have already been appointed to it. We just need to get the call from the government to say: “All right. This committee needs to go out. It needs to consult with people across the province. It needs to consult with parents, school trustees, teachers, support staff, people that work in the community, retired people from the education system — people that care about education.”

I’m sure that there would be considerable people that would want to come and present to a committee such as this. So I support my colleague’s amendment to this legislation. I hope that the government, in their wisdom, also supports this. I hope that they realize this is the best thing to do for the sake of the children in this province that are in our education system. It is the best thing that could possibly happen.

K. Corrigan: I’m pleased to stand up and also support the motion that Bill 11 be referred to the education committee of the Legislature. As my colleague has just said, I also am appointed to the Education Committee. That’s a committee that has never met, certainly for as long as I’ve been appointed to it. Never had one meeting. Never discussed any policy. Haven’t even appointed a Chair. I guess you don’t need to have a Chair of a committee that doesn’t function.

It’s unfortunate that nobody from the other side is getting up to speak on this amendment. In fact, very few speakers from the other side have even gotten up — I think maybe one or two — to speak on this bill that is so critical. This bill, Bill 11, which further centralizes government control over education, is so universally criticized by those that have a stake in and knowledge of and concern with public education.

It’s been roundly criticized by the B.C. Teachers Federation, individual teachers, local teachers associations. It’s been criticized roundly by the B.C. School Trustees Association and many, many individual boards around this province. It’s been criticized by parents. It’s been criticized by everybody, other than the Minister of Education. It has been criticized for the great changes it makes.

When you have a bill that is so universally condemned as Bill 11 — one which is being criticized as being antidemocratic — that’s exactly the reason that we should be referring this piece of legislation for further discussion, for further consultation. So now we are not only having consultation and discussion while the bill is before this House; we certainly didn’t have consultation beforehand.

It is most unfortunate that in December — not six months ago, not even five months ago — the Minister of Education, with great fanfare, went to the B.C. School Trustees Association.

[1645]

The B.C. School Trustees Association is an organization which represents boards. I believe it’s all of the boards — although there’s been some reconsideration of that — around the province.

The B.C. School Trustees Association representative executive Teresa Rezansoff and the Minister of Education signed a memorandum of understanding in December. And what that memorandum of understanding said was that we recognize…. It said a few things. But what it formalized was that we recognize that education should be co-governed, that there is a role for the provincial government in ensuring that we have consistent standards and leadership at the provincial levels, setting of curriculum, to some degree. But there is also a great role for local boards.

This co-governance agreement that was signed five months ago by the Minister of Education and by the BCSTA said that we will discuss matters of mutual interest and that if there are going to be changes in the education system, then we will consult and we will discuss. And yet here we are five months later.

And who knows? I wouldn’t doubt that the Minister of Education was thinking about this bill five months ago. As he was signing and saying we will consult, he was planning a bill that was completely opposite to the spirit of that memorandum. He was planning a bill that took away power and autonomy, an autonomy that has existed for over 100 years. He was planning to take away the autonomy of local school boards.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that we have a bill here. It is consistent with the past history of this government in terms of lack of respect — lack of respect, in this particular case, for the B.C. School Trustees Association. Certainly a culture of lack of respect for the B.C. Federation of Teachers and for individual teachers. This bill, certainly, is a continuation of a broken relationship which sees the B.C. Liberal government and Minister after Minister of Education, making top-down decisions without consultation.

When we have a bill that is antidemocratic, when we have a bill where there has not been consultation in advance, when we have a bill that directly is inconsistent with an agreement that was signed several months ago and is directly inconsistent with what the Premier and the minister have said recently — that we’re going to have a new spirit of consultation working together and respect….When we have all of those things happening, surely this is an opportunity where government can
[ Page 7985 ]
take an opportunity that’s presented to it — an out from this terrible bill — and say: “Maybe we should. Maybe we should step back and refer this to the Education Committee.”

Maybe we should have a chance to ask questions. There are so many questions that are attached to this bill, and there are so many things that are happening with this bill. This bill, which raises so many questions that could be answered if it was referred — or, at least, discussed — to the Education Committee.

It centralizes government control over education. It grants the minister authority over professional development. There are so many questions just on that first matter. There are so many questions about that. Why was this needed? What is the purpose of this? What does the minister expect to achieve in taking control over professional development?

[1650]

Mr. Speaker, you know this because you are from my community of Burnaby. I represent Burnaby–Deer Lake, and Mr. Speaker represents Burnaby-Edmonds. He knows, and I know, that in the school district of Burnaby — where I was a trustee for nine years — the professional development is done collaboratively. It isn’t done with a top-down approach.

There’s a committee. There is discussion between the school board and the teachers, and discussion and consultation and putting together the heads and all the people in the system who are experts — that being the teachers, principals, board staff, district staff, the leadership there and support staff, often — putting all the people together and saying: “Okay, what can we do that is best for professional development? How can we make professional development the most effective that it can be?”

The way to do that is through consultation. But that’s certainly not what’s happening with this bill. What is happening is that this gives the minister control over professional development.

I think we have a minister, and I think we have a government, that doesn’t like democracy and doesn’t particularly like school boards. It certainly shows great disdain for teachers and shows disdain, apparently, for the B.C. School Trustees Association as well. So of course, when that has been the pattern over the past…. It has been certainly shown. That disdain has certainly been demonstrated. That lack of respect has been demonstrated in court cases that have reaffirmed several times that the government’s disdain is illegal.

When we have that kind of past history, when we have a justice who is saying that this relationship between teachers and the government was starting to work…. More than a decade ago it was starting to work. There was a relationship growing. Unfortunately, at every turn, when there has been an opportunity for that relationship between the government and teachers to mature and to improve and for trust to develop between the parties…. Every time that has happened, the government has done something else which destroys that trust.

Given that, I’m disappointed that this is not being referred to the Education Committee, because I think we all, for the sake of public education, need to step back. We all need to step back, and certainly, government needs to step back and say: “Okay, maybe we need to reconsider our approach.” It’s not only the elements of the bill which are so top-down, which are so antidemocratic, but just generally the whole approach that this government has taken with respect to education in this province. There are certainly a lot of questions that would be asked if this bill could go to committee.

I’ve talked just a second about professional development. Maybe just finally on professional development, I don’t know what it is…. I was alluding to this a couple of minutes ago. The bill grants the minister authority over professional development. I’m just not sure what it…. There’s discussion. The minister talks about accountability and so on. But school boards and school teachers are accountable all the time, and they are professional as well. Who knows better than teachers and their teacher organizations, the professionals, about what would be the best type of professional development?

I’m worried, and I believe that the intention of this is to force whatever it is, the messages, that government wants to force upon teachers. That isn’t good for democracy. It’s certainly not good for improvement of professional development. It is, as I said, disrespectful.

[1655]

Education Advisory Councils can be appointed by the minister to advise on policy matters. That’s a provision under this legislation as well. Well, that’s exactly what we’re talking about here. We have an Education Committee.

I’m concerned that an education advisory council will be appointed — well, it will be appointed — by the minister to advise on policy matters. Once again, this government and this minister centralizing control, because we know that those that are going to be appointed to any education advisory council are going to be people that are favoured by the minister. They are likely going to be people who will give the minister the answer that he wants. They are going to be individuals that will be appointed — and, presumably, could be un-appointed — by the minister to advise on policy matters.

So I’m very concerned about that particular provision. I’m not sure exactly what it means, but I would have loved for this bill to be referred to the Education Committee. I would love that, and I’m still hopeful, although I very much doubt that our motion to refer is going to be accepted. But I would have liked that to have happened.

Another set of provisions in this bill deals with disclosure of personal information, of student information, and that raises all sorts of questions and all sorts of concerns about exactly what is intended there. We know that
[ Page 7986 ]
there have been many, many occasions when there have been real concerns expressed in ombudspersons’ reports, in Auditors General reports — all sorts of different ways.

Certainly, the organizations that are concerned about privacy, the Information and the Privacy Commissioner, have expressed concern about how personal information is used by government — by this government. And there have been leaks. There have been major leaks, potentially catastrophic and sometimes very disturbing. So when a government is looking at disclosure and using personal information without clear privacy protections, that is a concern. That is an area I’m very concerned about — freedom of information — and that is certainly an area that, again, I think would have been an area that would have had fruitful discussion.

If you refer to the Education Committee, what that means is that it gives that committee a chance…. When a committee operates well — and there are some committees that operate well here — then you call witnesses. You have discussion. For example, when we’re talking about something as sensitive and potentially damaging as disclosure of students’ personal information, of the possible aggregating of information for research or for whatever purpose — it’s not really clear — and that’s a change from the past…. When you’re talking about doing that, I would like to have come to the Education Committee that I’m a member of….

I would love to be able to have the Privacy Commissioner, for example, or experts that the Privacy Commissioner recommends, come to the Education Committee and have a discussion and provide advice and make points that are relevant, because there are a lot of questions, certainly, to be asked about the disclosure of personal information.

I notice also…. Now, this is perhaps one part of this bill that maybe the Education Committee would not discuss too much. It was the fact that school planning councils have been eliminated, as has the superintendent of achievement. I won’t spend much time talking about that, because I don’t believe that the Education Committee probably would want to discuss that very much, because it was discussed years ago, I recall.

[1700]

I think I was a school trustee or may even have been a parent involved in the schools when school planning councils were brought into being — another great idea from this government — asking parents to become involved in the plans, to become intimately involved in planning for the school and to essentially approve the plan and look at the budget of the school with the idea that perhaps budgets would go directly to the schools. I remember that was in the offing at the same time, and it was a disaster.

Parents were already on the parent advisory committee. This created whole levels of more paperwork, largely on our poor administrators, who were getting more and more paperwork all the time because of the red tape of this government — which is very interesting because this government claims that it’s going to get rid of red tape. But when it comes to controlling other organizations, wresting control, then the red tape abounds. It flourishes. It flows everywhere.

School planning councils have been eliminated. They never worked. So that’s a good thing. I don’t really think that the Education Committee needs to discuss that too much, so perhaps we’ll just leave that one.

Another area, a very important area, that is of a great deal of concern to school boards and the various stakeholders is the fact that government, with this legislation, would have the ability to force services and shared services on school boards. This is a first. This is very concerning, and it’s particularly concerning given this government’s history and this government’s record with regard to shared services.

It was this government that brought us BCeSIS for $100 million, a failed database — $100 million dollars, plus the millions of dollars, I would say, of time that was wasted over the years with a system that was imposed by this government on local districts. So when we have a government saying, “We know better,” and a government that’s saying, “We are going to force districts to have shared services and projects,” it is of a great deal of concern. This is the type of proposal that I think does need to be discussed by the Education Committee.

This proposal is one of the proposals that certainly has caused school boards all across the province…. The school board in Burnaby has expressed grave concern about the lack of democracy with regard to these provisions and others. The BCTF has expressed concern, the school board in Delta.

I went up to Prince George a couple of weeks ago. The school board in Prince George — I was very impressed. I’ve said this before. I was very impressed with the Prince George school board.

They are very, very concerned. Just one quote from Sharel Warrington who wrote me a letter on behalf of the board saying how concerned they were about Bill 11. She said: “It’s very concerning in its implications. We really won’t know until we’ve had a real chance to look at what it means for the board governance, what it means for board autonomy, what it means in a lot of ways.” In the letter to me they talked about it being antidemocratic, and in their discussions with me.

What they’re saying: “We don’t know. We haven’t had a chance, and we don’t know what it’s going to mean.” Much of this bill is being left to regulation. There are concerns about autonomy, concerns about the fact that the changes can impose administrative directives, including forcing boards to sell off land. When you have those kinds of directives and we don’t know exactly what they mean, we don’t know what the intention is, that is an indication that the bill would do well to be referred to the Education Committee.

[1705]

There are so many problems with this bill. There are no stakeholders. I’m sure the government is trying to find them somewhere. With so many opposed to this bill, you would think that government would be doing their level best to find people who were supportive of the bill. I’m sure there’s somebody somewhere, but I haven’t heard it.

I haven’t even heard it from the members on the other side of the House. Even they…. The only person who seems to support this bill is the Minister of Education himself, because he wants to control teachers, he wants to control boards, and he wants to impose this antidemocratic piece of legislation in order to achieve that.

I think this is a good suggestion, that this be referred to the Education Committee. When you do have concerns that the legislation is not democratic, that people don’t understand what the minister is trying to do, what the government is trying to do, when there has been no consultation after consultation was promised, when there was no consultation with the group, the B.C. Teachers Federation, that was promised that they were going to have a new relationship, when all of these things happen, then perhaps one way to try to save this mess of a piece of legislation, maybe one thing to do, would be to refer it to the Education Committee.

I certainly would be very happy, as a member of that committee, which has never met…. Apparently, there’s nothing worth talking about with regard to education that would benefit from a full and robust discussion. I would be very happy to find lots of time. Public education is my passion — education, post-secondary, K to 12 and private education, which I am learning more about. There are some really interesting and very effective private education bodies in this province that I’m looking at, at the post-secondary level.

There would be so much to be learned, and we could do a better job in education if we would have more discussions in committee, just like we would do much better if we were to refer all sorts of matters in this House. I think of the fact that I’m on the Public Accounts Committee.

At the Public Accounts Committee we meet regularly. We discuss Auditor General’s reports and other matters, but largely value-for-money reports, performance audits, and we consider the financial statements of the province. It’s a very important committee. We meet dozens of times a year, and I think those committee meetings are very important. They provide an important role for this Legislature.

I think the same thing could be said for the Education Committee — just like the Finance Committee, which travels all over this province. That’s good work. The Finance Committee….

One of the things that happens in committees is that you also have a less adversarial tone come out, and that is important. I think we could do better. We could work together better in this place if we could have more committee work, where people are working together to try to come up with solutions rather than standing here and simply having us say that this is a terrible piece of legislation — which it is — without being able to come up with joint solutions.

I certainly support this motion. I think this piece of legislation should be sent to the Education Committee so that we can talk about it, find out more about what is intended, perhaps make some changes, perhaps listen to some people who should be listened to when we’re looking at how we’re going to shape education in the future. With that, I am going to take my place.

M. Mungall: I’m happy to rise today in support of the motion to refer Bill 11 to the Select Standing Committee on Education and also very happy to take my place following the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who noted many good points about the committees that exist in this House. If more would meet, the benefits would accrue to the members of the public. Of course, like the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, I share her passion about education, from the K-to-12 system to the post-secondary system as well.

[1710]

Looking at this piece of legislation, Bill 11, and having that passion for education, I feel compelled to say that we need to turn this terrible legislation into good legislation, and the best place that we can do that is in the Select Standing Committee on Education.

For people at home who are wondering why we keep calling Bill 11 terrible legislation, what is so bad about Bill 11, at the end of the day what Bill 11 does is it centralizes government control over education. Right now, during local government elections, British Columbians head to the polls. They not only vote for city councillors and mayors, but they also vote for their representatives on school district boards. They vote for their school trustees.

These trustees represent their community’s views and input into the way in which we manage our public school system. So, for example, parents who have children going to Trafalgar Middle School in Nelson have some concerns about that building and the upgrades that need to be taking place at that building. For example, the washrooms are very old, and they desperately need renovation.

The kids go home and tell this to their parents. The parents, as electors of the school board, are able to bring that directly to their representatives on the school board and say: “Where’s the solution?” That’s exactly what has happened in Nelson. Families brought their concerns, not just for the washrooms but for the entire school — the mould that’s been accumulating due to leaky roofs and leaky pipes, dealing with the old floors that are falling apart and so on.

Families and the school board worked together and created a renovation plan and a maintenance plan for Trafalgar school. I won’t get into how this government has delayed funding that’s so desperately needed to real-
[ Page 7988 ]
ize those plans, but it was the families and the school board working together that made that happen, because the school boards are directly elected in our communities and have that responsibility on the ground every day.

I’ll tell you. I don’t know of any parents — maybe there are a few — from my constituency of Nelson-Creston who have had the pleasure of meeting the Minister of Education and being able to take their concerns directly to him face to face on Baker Street in Nelson. I’m pretty sure that that hasn’t happened.

With this bill, Bill 11, they’re not going to be able to do that with their school board as much anymore. They’re going to have to try and track down the Minister of Education, perhaps in Langley or in Surrey, and say: “Hey, we’ve got a problem here at Trafalgar school. Can we work on that together?” We’ll only guess what the Minister of Education’s response might be in such a scenario.

The reality is that that type of direct relationship with the public is not going to exist as robustly as it does now because of Bill 11, because Bill 11 centralizes government control over education. It does this. It gives the minister the unilateral authority to impose shared services and projects and what they call improved student services.

What most school districts have observed is that this is not about student services or about student performance. This is about saving money and actually taking money, taking valuable funds out of the Ministry of Education and into the void of general revenue. And who knows. Maybe it’ll go to another tax break for the top 2 percent.

What we see in this year’s budget is that for this year we have a $29 million cut in the Ministry of Education and a $25 million cut next year. And the Premier says: “Oh, that’s okay. We’ll just take from the lowest-hanging fruit.” What the Premier and this government don’t seem to understand is that school districts have already cut all that low-hanging fruit.

[1715]

They have worked together already on many shared-services programs. Many of them are successful, unlike this government’s last attempt at imposing a shared service onto the K-to-12 system, which was the BCeSIS IT program that was a colossal failure and that eventually had to be abandoned. If I recall correctly, that was about $80 million of waste right there. That’s the legacy of this government’s attempt at imposing shared services onto school districts.

School districts, on the other hand, have been able to find ways to work together to identify where they can have shared services, whether it’s in IT or purchasing. They have done that, and they’ve done it successfully. And they didn’t need the minister to come in and impose anything.

Now what we see with Bill 11 is that the minister is doing exactly that, attempting to impose his will onto locally elected school boards. They would do that, as I said, through shared services.

There are other things about this bill that are deeply concerning and why we need to be looking at it with the Select Standing Committee on Education. One of the things that is also deeply concerning about this bill is the sharing of personal information of students. There are just too many questions about this.

Parents are concerned that their children’s information is not going to be retained properly, that ministries are going to be sharing information back and forth. Does this provision even comply with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act? That’s the question that parents have. They would be able to delve into that, and the members of the committee would be able to delve into that sufficiently and be able to put forward better legislation if only members on the government side saw the value of the committees of this House.

The other thing that this bill does that is of great concern is give directives to teachers about what their professional development ought to be. Now, all professions conduct some level of professional development. Doctors, nurses, dentists — there’s professional development in these professions. But those professions don’t have the ministers responsible breathing down their necks telling them what they need and need not do to enhance their skills, to modernize their practices. None of that exists. Those professions identify their needs for development, develop curricula accordingly and implement those development tools accordingly.

This government has singled out teachers as not being able to do that. I think British Columbians across this province and members of the opposition certainly know that teachers are exactly the people, in conjunction with the school boards and with parent advisory councils, who should be identifying, developing and implementing professional development, not the Minister of Education at his own discretion.

These three main aspects of Bill 11 are what cause incredible concern around the province. What is at the root of all of this, I think, is this government’s complete and utter failure to consult with the very people who are going to be mostly impacted by this legislation. They did not consult school districts. They did not consult teachers. They did not consult parents.

[1720]

They did not have a widespread public conversation about these serious and significant changes to our public education system that they are proposing. No. Rather, this was drafted up in the minister’s office. I’m sure it went through cabinet, and everyone looked around and said: “Oh yeah, this is great.” But at no point did they have a conversation with the people who matter most, which is the people who are outside this building.

It’s the people who are going to be in the classrooms, in the schools. That’s who they should have had the conversation with, not just amongst themselves. That’s how you make good legislation. But this government, in its hu-
[ Page 7989 ]
bris, has been determined to make bad legislation when it comes to public education, and goodness knows why.

If we want to improve Bill 11, if we want to make this good legislation that’s going to work for British Columbia families, then we need to refer this bill. For the first time since I was appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Education four years ago, we might actually have a meeting. We might actually do the job that we are supposed to be doing when we are on a committee, which is to actually do the work of a committee.

Too few committees of this Legislative Assembly meet, ever, much more meet on a regular basis — too few. We should be increasing that, because it’s through the committee stage that we’re able to make better legislation.

For the public at home who are wondering, “Well, what does the Select Standing Committee on Education do,” I hope they don’t go to the website, because they will be incredibly disappointed. Under the terms of reference this is what it reads: “The Select Standing Committee on Education has not received a terms of reference from the Legislative Assembly and is not currently active.”

We are supposed to be looking at legislation, looking at issues important to education. After this government’s record of the trouble that they have created in the public education sector, it’s about time that this committee finally met and finally started to work with the public and give direction to this government on the public education system, on what we need for our children in the classrooms, what teachers need so they can do their best job, so that children can meet their full potential. That’s what that committee could do.

It’s not another committee of red tape. It’s important work that translates into the lives of children, that translates into our communities, that translates into our economy. This is all beneficial stuff. If the committee met, we wouldn’t see this on the website, under the heading “Meeting notices,” in big, bold letters: “No meetings currently scheduled for this committee.” Instead, we would know that the ten members on the committee were going to actually meet and were going to actually be working on public education.

We’ve heard from the member for Kootenay West; she’s also on the committee. We’ve heard from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake; she’s also on the committee. We’ve heard from the member for Victoria–Swan Lake; he’s also on the committee. I’m on the committee. I would love to meet with those members in the committee. I would love to meet with them and talk about this bill — talk to school districts, talk to parents and talk to teachers about what this bill is going to mean for them and how we can make it better. As it stands right now, this is terrible legislation.

I would also love to meet with some of the members who are on the committee who haven’t spoken, and I sure hope that they do. The member for Abbotsford-Mission, the members for Surrey–White Rock, Surrey-Panorama, Fraser-Nicola, North Vancouver–Seymour and Richmond-Steveston — all of them are also on this committee. While they are members from the opposite side, I would love to meet with them.

[1725]

Yes, I would love to be in a room with six other members from the Liberal government, absolutely, because we would be talking about the things that are important to British Columbians, the things that are important to education and the things that are in this bill that are currently a problem for British Columbians.

I would love to meet with them and put a request out to the Delta school district, put a request out to the Sunshine Coast school district, put a request out to school district 81 of Fort Nelson and put a request out to Kootenay Lake school district, my school district — all the school districts in the province — because all of them have something to say about Bill 11. There is no formal body of this Legislative Assembly which is listening to them right now in a formal way that feeds into the legislative process. We’re listening on this side of the House, and we’re bringing those views back to the Legislature.

In speaking to the bill earlier, I read out some of the very, very insightful points that many groups have been making about Bill 11, but they need a formal place where they feel their voices are being heard, where they feel that what they have to say is actually contributing to the legislative process. That’s exactly what the committee would offer them. The committee would offer them a formal process, a formal environment in which they could provide input into legislation and make it better, make it real for people.

All too often, because of bad legislation and not being able to put it through committee and a review of committee and a review of the public, we find ourselves back in this House cleaning up their legislative messes. Let’s just avoid that and put this bill to committee. Let the stakeholders come forward and have their formal input. As the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake mentioned, that committee stage is a less adversarial place. It’s a more collaborative place between stakeholders and both sides of the House.

Indeed, I served on the Finance committee for two years when I was first elected, in 2009 through to 2011. We didn’t always agree, and that’s okay. In a democracy we don’t want people to always agree all the time; that disagreement and that debate is integral. But we were able to do it in a way that was less adversarial and come to conclusions that were bipartisan.

In fact, many of the Finance committee reports are adopted and put forward to this House unanimously. All members of the committee, regardless of which caucus they come from, support the report. It’s because in that committee stage we’re able to work in a bipartisan fashion in conjunction with the stakeholders.

In this case the stakeholders are teachers, the people at
[ Page 7990 ]
the head of the classroom teaching our children. They’re the people we elect to represent our input into the public education system — the school boards and the parent advisory councils — the parents who are taking part every day, volunteering their time to be involved in all of our children’s education. All of them would be able to come together at the committee, give input and have an in-depth dialogue with MLAs, with members of this House, about Bill 11, what it means to them, how we can improve this legislation and how we can make good legislation for public education.

Instead of going to the website and seeing no meetings currently scheduled for this committee, we would see a list of meetings scheduled and when Delta school district, when Kootenay Lake school district and when the British Columbia School Trustees Association would be presenting. As I said, that consultation is integral, and it did not happen.

[1730]

This is what the British Columbia School Trustees Association has to say about Bill 11: “Had the BCSTA and our member boards been provided an opportunity for participation and input, such as that given for the accountability framework or curriculum revisions, we may not have arrived at this point.” We probably wouldn’t have the terrible legislation that we have today is basically what they’re saying. We would have had better legislation. “The absence of appropriate consultation and review processes compounds our concerns.”

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The school trustees association of this province wants to be involved in making this legislation better, in making good legislation for public education. They don’t want to be excluded. They’re not saying: “Oh, don’t worry about us. You can ignore us. It’s okay. We trust you.” They’re definitely not saying to the Premier and to the Minister of Education: “Go ahead. Do whatever you want. We trust you.” They are definitely not saying that.

What they are saying is that they want to be a part of the process, that they have something to offer. We know that they do. These are people who contribute to their communities every day. These are people who are accountable to their communities every day by walking down the main street of their communities. These are people who are working day in and day out for our public education system.

Why wouldn’t we consult them right off the bat? Why wouldn’t we do that? It just makes sense. But making sense is not what the Liberals do best. Okay. Fair enough. So let’s start getting there.

I’m asking them to support this motion to refer so that we can get there, so that we can get to the consultation that makes sense, so that we can get to legislation that makes sense. It’s not a big request. It’s not a hard request. It’s not something that’s too difficult to do. It’s something that we can do, that we should do and that we are being asked to do.

The B.C. Teachers Federation is also concerned about the lack of consultation with this bill — and of course they are, of course they would be. They have done a tremendous job in terms of professional development for teachers.

They have done a tremendous job working with school districts and parents on what’s needed in their particular region. What do teachers need to learn to improve their skills, to modernize their skills? What do their students need from them? What kinds of resources are needed? They’ve done a fabulous job at this. The only person complaining is the Minister of Education. You don’t see British Columbians complaining.

We see the Minister of Education, rather, wanting to take control, wanting to break something, or break it and then fix it himself. This is just absolutely ridiculous. It’s not needed.

Of course, the B.C. Teachers Federation is calling for consultation. They just want to be a part of making good legislation, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask. They’re the ones at the front of the classrooms. They’re the ones who are there day in and day out. They’re the ones who know the public education system just as well…. I was going to say the best, but we also know that school trustees know it very well.

These are the two groups that know the public education system day in and day out. They know what’s needed in the classrooms. They know what we need to be doing to ensure that every child has the resources they need to live up to their full potential. They’re the ones who know.

Why aren’t we talking to them? Why weren’t they spoken to before this legislation was even put before cabinet? Why? It doesn’t make sense. But here we are. We can’t go back in time and reverse that, but what we can try to do is go forward and make something better, make the process better. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

[1735]

The Liberals made a mistake. Okay. Let’s fix it. Let’s work together to fix it. Let’s get this bill to committee so that the teachers, the school districts and the parents can all provide input into what’s needed, into public education.

Indeed, the district parent advisory council for school district 8 in my constituency wants to see consultation. This is what they say: “Consultation after the fact does not equate with involvement during the process.” I’m going to say that again, because, to me, they are some of the wisest words I’ve heard concerning this. Consultation after the fact does not equate with involvement during the process.

This speaks to the heart of what the Minister of Education is saying and what this government is saying about Bill 11, which is “Trust us. We’ll consult after. Everything will be hunky-dory. It will all be fine. Don’t
[ Page 7991 ]
worry.” That’s what we are hearing from them. But as the parents in Nelson-Creston and around Kootenay Lake are saying, consultation after the fact does not equate with involvement during the process.

They want to be involved during the process. As I’ve said time and time again, I don’t think that’s too much to ask. In fact, it’s a very reasonable request: to be involved with the legislation that’s going to be impacting their children. They have every right to make this request. It’s a reasonable request, and why the heck are we not doing it? I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that legislation would be a lot better if we did involve the parents, if we did involve the teachers and if we did involve the school districts.

So let’s do that. Let’s move this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Education. Let’s move this bill to that committee so that committee can give it the scrutiny it needs and can work with the stakeholders that will ultimately be living with the results of the legislation — so that we make good legislation and we are doing right by British Columbians. That’s what British Columbians deserve.

L. Popham: Well, here we are again. We’re trying our best to use a parliamentary tool in order to make sure we have full democracy in this chamber. Over the last seven years that I’ve been here, I’ve noticed that that’s getting weaker and weaker.

I think there’s some confusion with the other side of the House. They believe that — and fair enough — they were elected as government by democracy. But then they got confused and began to run the province like it was a dictatorship. It doesn’t mean, once you get elected, that you shut out the rest of the province.

We’ve seen this before in this House. This is a continual pattern of the way that legislation is brought forward. We saw it in the Animal Health Act, which had a complete lack of consultation. Eventually it was taken off the table a year and a half ago. We saw the changes to the Agriculture Land Reserve Act, Bill 24. Again, no consultation. People are shut out.

When that happens, we call for an amendment, which is really a hoist motion. Hoist motions are not successful in this chamber. You can ask for three to six months to refer to a standing committee. That’s really the essence of a hoist motion and the essence of this amendment. But it doesn’t work.

Why is that? Because the government has already decided what’s going to happen. They decide what’s going to happen and how it’s going to work even before the legislation is written. They’ve got a plan.

Unfortunately, when we look at Bill 11, what we see is a commitment by the government that there will be no consultation, and they are going to become fully in charge of our teachers and our school boards. The minister himself is committed in this legislation to meddle in our kids’ education system. The minister has committed to meddle in my son’s education. That’s something that I don’t feel very good about.

[1740]

We have school boards that are elected, but they seem to lose their power with Bill 11. We have teachers who are, really, supposed to be designing our school education system, and they’ve been shut out as well. What this legislation does is that it creates an opportunity for government to make decisions behind closed doors. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work unless you’ve got the people that you like to consult with already lined up.

For example, I’m sure the Minister of Education is, you know, hell-bent to bring in the Fraser Institute. What does the Fraser Institute think about Bill 11? Do they like it? I’m sure they do. Let’s let the minister and the Fraser Institute work behind closed doors and talk about how we can improve the public education system. It’s not improving it at all. We know what the Fraser Institute thinks about the public education system.

I think it’s pretty obvious that this minister, especially, loves power. It’s a total power trip. And the members on the other side of the House — we know that they’re representing constituents. All of us are representing about 50,000 constituents. We know they’re getting correspondence from their constituents asking them to hoist or amend this bill, allowing for consultation. They’re getting those letters. We’re getting those letters. But they’re ignoring them, and that’s because they don’t care.

The decision has been made by the Minister of Education. None of the members on the other side can stand up and give us a good reason why this legislation should go through, under these circumstances. A new movie could be made in this chamber called “Silence of the Sheep,” because nobody on the other side is speaking. It’s silence over there — “Silence of the Sheep.” The member over there is actually quite excited. He’s going to maybe have the starring role: “Silence of the Sheep.”

Anyway, I think that’s really the problem. When you’re going to actually refer to a Standing Committee on Education — you know, we’re two years out from an election — you would think they might even just try and play along, just to look good. But no, they’re not at that point yet. I guess they’ll wait another couple of months before that happens. It’s all image, and we get that. When you actually refer something to a standing committee, especially a bipartisan standing committee, the tool that’s available to the government to improve legislation is very good, and it’s very effective.

I’m not really sure why you wouldn’t do that, unless we look at the history of standing committees in this Legislature. The last time the Standing Committee on Education was used in this Legislature was 2007. That’s the last time it sat. You can see that it’s sort of there. The Premier uses it as an announcement every time we start a new session. But it’s meaningless. It sounds great. We’re
[ Page 7992 ]
all for it, but it never actually works.

What we’ve been forced to do on the opposition side…. If you can’t ever refer anything to a standing commission, or they’re not active, what we are forced to do on this side is to do things like form our own opposition standing committee, where we can do the work that the government is supposed to do.

An example is the standing committee on agriculture. It’s an opposition committee — been asking for a Standing Committee on Agriculture to be reinstated in this House for the last seven years. The last time that committee sat was in 2001, even though the general population would love a standing committee. We’re actually working in the province right now — the official opposition and an independent member — touring around, asking for input. We are doing the actual consultation that should be done.

I believe we did a hoist motion on Bill 24 last spring. That was, again, to refer to a committee. The Agriculture Committee didn’t even exist. We were asking it to be referred to a committee that didn’t exist, because this government doesn’t value standing committees.

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It’s an excellent committee, and the reason why it’s so great is because we all get a chance, all of us as elected members, to sit and debate issues and put our thoughts on the table. It doesn’t always go smoothly. People get their backs up in those committees, but it’s a way to work it out. It’s so very important.

[1745]

The standing committee on agriculture — we’re heading into the Comox Valley in two weeks. We’ve sent out a press release, put it on Facebook, and we are basically almost fully booked. That’s the appetite people have for wanting to communicate with government and to communicate with government about policy development. That’s what it’s all about.

When you have a bill like Bill 24, and you basically are shutting down democracy, the thing that people are writing to us about constantly is the lack of availability of a government ear. The opposition is listening, again, but the government members are not listening. They’re not listening, and they’re not talking.

I’m not sure why you get elected in this House unless you have an opinion that you would like to express, especially on Bill 11. If you don’t want to express it, I guess the opposition can use all the tools available to it, such as an amendment, a hoist motion, but the government generally ignores that. It’s curious to me why we use this parliamentary system at all if we actually don’t have any effective way of using the tools that are available to us.

Now, the Saanich school district, school district No. 63, wrote a letter on April 21 talking about their concern at “the loss of autonomy of a democratically elected board through provisions that allow the minister to direct the actions or remove a board without compelling rationale other than declaring it ‘in the best interests of the public.’”

Every corner you turn in this Legislature, the opportunity for proper consultation gets taken away. It gets absolutely taken away so that the government can override what are supposed to be independent boards. We just have to take a look at the Agricultural Land Commission right now. We see one of the largest land exclusions that we’ve seen up in the Peace River. How did that happen? It happened behind closed doors.

Deputy Speaker: I’m giving the member a lot of leeway, but I think we need to get back to the amendment, please, Member.

L. Popham: Yes, thank you, and I will. I’m talking about why we actually need to have an amendment like this and why it’s important. I appreciate the reminder.

The example I’m going to use on why we need to have an amendment like this, to send this out for proper consultation by the Standing Committee on Education, is because when you don’t do that, you see the result that we just saw in the Peace River, where a massive land exclusion was done — biggest ever. The decision on that was supposed to go to an independent commission, but the government overrode it and made the decision behind closed doors.

Everywhere we look right now, there are decisions being made like this. This legislation is simply allowing this to be done in a more effective way. Basically, Bill 11 isn’t really about education. It’s about control — by the minister.

Now, I’ve watched what’s been going on with education for the last 11 years. My son is in the public school system. I’m so proud to have him in the public school system, so proud of my school district and the teachers that have been involved in his life. I think that they make great decisions. Currently my son goes to Claremont School. He is in grade 11, and he’s part of an amazing program called the Institute for Global Solutions.

It’s a pilot project, and the teachers there are so dedicated to his education style that it’s made an incredible difference in his life. He’s one of these kids that doesn’t learn the same way as everybody else, so in the Institute for Global Solutions it’s hands-on learning. He’s an incredibly smart kid. Last year this class, along with these teachers…. They took the class across Canada in a train to Ottawa so they could learn the importance of being Canadian, what it means to be Canadian and the importance of democracy and what democracy means to them.

That’s hands-on learning. It’s a very interesting program with a different learning style. The program is completely oversubscribed because the program itself has been so successful that kids are telling other kids about it.

[1750]

It’s an incredible thing. This has been done by teachers that are designing the program. My fear with Bill 11
[ Page 7993 ]
is that that creativity and passion from the teachers and the approval by the local school board for a program such as this will all go directly into the control of the Minister of Education. I can tell you that, for me as a parent, that is something I don’t want.

The Minister of Education has no connection, in my view, to school district 63. The Minister of Education has no connection to my son. I don’t want the Minister of Education controlling the way my son is learning and taking away opportunities because it’s more important to him to have control over the education system than it is to do it in a way that’s democratic.

I am fully supporting this amendment, this hoist motion, even though I know that this exercise that we’re all going through right now is one of these exercises that is absolutely meaningless in this chamber because this government….

Deputy Speaker: You’re, again, very close to the edge of the rules.

L. Popham: I am going to wrap it up, because I think I might go over the edge, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to wrap it up, and I’m going to support this amendment. I would love to see one of the members on the other side stand up and just squeak out something, a couple of words.

J. Shin: I’m rising again for the debate on Bill 11, this time on the motion to not have it read a second time but that “the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Education, and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it” for further deliberations. I support this motion to send the bill to the committee for public consultation and deliberation because Bill 11 is a rushed, illegitimate piece of legislation to begin with.

We have an all-party select standing committee here in the Legislature for just the kind of work required to deal with bills of this type, where we can have a sober second thought with real input from the public. Bill 11 lacks any legitimacy because it fundamentally failed to consult those that it impacts — the key education stakeholders, many of whom, by the way, are in fierce opposition to this bill. I’ve had many phone calls and e-mails from the stakeholders on this matter, expressing their concerns and not having anywhere else to go to get their voices heard.

Given that this legislation was brought in without much consultation, if any, we have all the more reason to support this motion to allow exactly the kind of public consultation that should have been done in the first place.

As B.C. lawmakers, we should welcome the opportunity at every chance to hear from those that this ministry has omitted hearing from while drafting this bill, like the professional teachers, experts on teacher professional development, the elected school board members, superintendents, secretary-treasurers and so on and so forth. It is important for us to carefully canvass the amendments that Bill 11 proposes to make.

Let’s take a look at the administrative directives. This bill gives the minister the authority to compel school districts to take part in shared-services agreements and gives the minister the power to appoint an official administrator if the boards fail to comply. This goes against the principle of co-governance that the government has committed to honouring.

The amendment further provides the minister with the authority to force different school boards to work together to find so-called administrative savings through shared-services agreements. The problem here, as we talked about before, is that some boards may end up having authority over other boards through this kind of arrangement. In other words, it can make some boards subservient to the other boards and at the discretion of the minister.

It can be ordered to enable a school board “to participate in or undertake a project” regarding the improvement of student performances or “another matter specified by the minister.” This essentially grants the minister broad powers to order a directive on any matter. Also, the minister can override other legislation to achieve the objectives of the directives.

[1755]

Given the substantial changes that may, as well, be unconstitutional, given that we are imposing authority over elected members in the school board — no different than the members of this Legislature — my question is: where were the school board members during the drafting of this bill?

Moving on to the professional development front. Let’s review the proposed changes there. This bill does not include specific examples of the professional development that the government might impose on teachers or consequences that may result if they fail to comply. That is, again, left to regulation.

Amendments do not provide any role for professional or education faculties in defining what constitutes a professional development activity. It is unclear whether this definition will encompass the broad range of professional development activities in which teachers are already engaged.

Again, I don’t see teachers invited for input on matters that directly apply to them. The government did not consult with the B.C. Teachers Federation on changes to the professional development. They do say that they will collaborate, going forward, but without any specification and timeline as to how that’s going to take place.

Moving on to the access to student information. The proposed amendments of Bill 11 erode student privacy. That’s obvious in the title alone. Section 170 of the School Act entitled “Non-disclosure of student records” is deleted,
[ Page 7994 ]
, and it is replaced with a new section entitled “Student personal information.” Whereas the current section 170 has strict controls over the ability for the ministry employees to disclose student personal information, the amendments that are proposed here are permissive in nature.

There is a key question regarding these amendments, whether they allow the disclosure of student personal information in ways that were not allowed previously. The government should be questioned about this, and the electorate does deserve an answer. Is it going to follow part 3 of the protection and privacy section?

It is also not clear to whom the personal information will be disclosed. Is the government envisioning data linking between public bodies? If so, will it be providing notice to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner? Will the public bodies undertake a privacy impact assessment, as required? Again here, students and parents, whose very lives are involved, are not a part of the discussion.

Whether it’s the administrative directives, professional development, access to student information, we are talking about changes that will directly and severely affect school boards, teachers, students and parents. Yet none of them seem to have been invited for discussion as this bill was drafted. Again, that’s all the more reason why the motion, which I support fully, makes sense — that this bill be not given a second reading and be referred to the committee for further consideration.

There are ten members in this House serving on the so-called Select Standing Committee on Education. I serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and previously on Health. At both committees there was a robust public consultation, as the Finance Committee toured around the province. The Health Committee met several times, where we had healthy deliberations between all party members that were in that particular committee.

I was surprised to find the Select Standing Committee on Education hasn’t met this session. It hasn’t met in the entire 40th parliament so far, and in fact, it hasn’t met for eight years. I am beginning to wonder why we have the committee in the first place if it’s not going to be meeting at all, let alone have ten members that are assigned to serve on that.

I know, certainly, the committee members on the committee for Education on this side of the House have been actively calling for the activation of the committee so that they can deliberate and discuss what’s happening with education in this province, be it classroom size, composition, government relations with stakeholders, budget considerations and more.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable, for a bill of this nature, to be able to invite witnesses to appear before it so that the deliberations and all these concerning points that have been raised so far can be talked about and canvassed more in detail.

I do want to quote an article that I came across the other day. It’s by Lizanne Foster. This is the kind of public input that you will be definitely missing out on, in the absence of public consultation, and perhaps that’s exactly what this government is trying to do. They’re not interested in hearing this kind of input.

[1800]

Here I will quote her letter.

“Dear Minister,

“I have heard you reference your grandchildren several times when you talk about the rationale behind your policies as the B.C. Minister of Education, so perhaps this analogy will make sense to you. Let’s say, hypothetically, that your grandchildren are sick and need to see a doctor. Would it be okay that the doctor’s professional development had been prescribed by a car salesman? No?

“Okay, then, perhaps you can explain why my graduate degree and 26 years of experience making decisions about the education of approximately 5,200 students makes me unqualified to make decisions about my professional development. While I wait for the explanation, I must admit that your proposed restrictions on what I can or cannot do for my professional development are the least of my concerns when it comes to Bill 11.

“A bigger concern is how I will be able to stand in front of my civics 11 students and teach them about democracy when they learn in the news that Bill 11 will give you, as Education Minister, the power to replace democratically elected school trustees.”

As you can see here, we are not just talking about teachers. We are talking about regular parents, academia and elected officials all raising their concerns about how this bill was drafted, what it proposes to change, the kind of threat that it imposes to our democracy. These are all the more reasons to make sure that we refer it to a committee for further consideration.

Now, with that said, I think I will conclude my remarks there and pass it to my colleague to take it on.

N. Macdonald: I’ve already spoken on Bill 11, but with the time I have here, I want to just speak quickly to this amendment. It is a motion that calls for a thoughtful process which is…. You wouldn’t think that there’d be much argument against going through a thoughtful process, but it seems that there is an argument, a strange one — a strange one in that the debate on this particular proposal has been completely one-sided.

We have not heard anyone on the B.C. Liberal side even show any respect for the idea of putting this to a committee. It’s that disdain from B.C. Liberals that is consistent in everything you see in education. Here today and over the past number of days where we’ve talked about education, they’ve chosen to be disdainful and disrespectful to the opposition.

That’s not the only group where they choose to do that. It’s with parents. It is certainly with teachers that they show this disdain, regularly. It’s with trustees.

What is wrong with having a thoughtful process? You know, buried within this bill is a pretty good argument for having a thoughtful process, for taking six months and going and listening to groups who understand these issues and actually respectfully listening to them — and
[ Page 7995 ]
maybe turning Bill 11 into something meaningful or useful. But consistently you see disdain from this government. Nobody on that side willing to talk about it.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

You know, I was here when Blair Lekstrom was a minister. Blair Lekstrom sat through the Clean Energy Act for days and days and listened, at least listened, with some degree of respect, to what opposition members were making. I tell you that it stands in sharp contrast to a minister who can’t even sit through the critic’s opening remarks. That, to me, shows complete disdain and disrespect.

Bill 11 has four elements. There is teacher professional development. It imposes shared services on districts. It dumps the failed accountability framework, and it changes the rules in student data. Let’s look at each of these in turn.

Madame Speaker: Member, commenting on the absence or presence of members is unparliamentary, and you are more than aware.

N. Macdonald: Yes, thank you.

Let’s look at these elements. Professional development. Now, professional development — first, if I am to listen to the debate from the few members who spoke on Bill 11’s initial second reading debate, it is clear that most members who spoke on that side have no understanding of what teacher professional development is about.

[1805]

It was asserted by one of their members that teachers show up or don’t show up for professional development. As the Speaker knows, it is a workday. It is a workday that is sometimes planned by the district administration. It is sometimes planned by your colleagues at the school level. But it is a workday. If you do not show up, then you do not get paid, and you pay the price of not showing up.

Now, I think people should show up for work here as well, which means participating respectfully in a debate. But seemingly, that is a standard that is only applied to others, not to politicians in this House on the government benches.

The ministry has said that professional development rules will come later. It’s not in this bill. It’s going to come in regulations later. It’s not ready. They tell us that they are going to take two years to get to a place where those regulations are ready. All we’re saying is: take six months and actually talk to people.

They ask us to believe that there is going to be a respectful dialogue from this minister, from this Premier, from this government with the B.C. Teachers Federation. That is absurd. That has not happened in the last ten years. It is not going to happen this time.

One of two things is clear. They either have no understanding and no idea of what teacher professional development means, and here I mean the B.C. Liberal government, or they have already made up their mind on something that they know is going to be unacceptable and egregious.

Those are the two things. If that was not the case, then this government would agree to take the time to do something proper with professional development, which is, actually, to those that understand it, to those teachers…. They understand that professional development is important, and they understand it — and I know the Speaker agrees with me on this one — in a way that nobody else in this House does. If you are not a teacher, you have not experienced that.

That is not to say anything superior about that profession, but professions understand the experience, just as policemen understand their challenges and small business understands their challenges. Teachers understand what it’s like to be in front of a classroom teaching students. Regardless of their age, it comes with a need to develop throughout your career that is particular to the classroom, particular to the area, particular to the type of curriculum that you are asked to teach. So zero trust on what this government is doing on professional development.

Let’s talk about the second element in Bill 11. It is to impose shared services on districts. To impose shared services. You know, the Revelstoke school district has about a dozen shared services. About a dozen. Do you think school districts have no idea about the need to share services? Do you think that’s a new concept, that you can’t go out…? Where it makes sense in a particular area, you share with other districts — in some cases, a number of districts.

Revelstoke has a dozen shared services. They have looked and tried to find the most efficient way to spend their money, but there are some places where it does not make sense. Contracts are different. Issues are different. Situations are different.

There is only one shared service that’s a real clunker, and it’s the one this government imposed, without thought, on districts across the province. I don’t know if the Speaker ever used BCeSIS or if she happened to miss that. I think you missed it, actually. It’s a blessing you missed BCeSIS. It was a clunker.

In my first speech I started to talk about…. We had systems that worked. We used Windsor. It was a commercial product that worked in our area. The government required every district to change to BCeSIS and then gave us a system that was so archaic, so arcane, that it caused one problem after another.

You know, if there is something that shuts down your computer, that’s one mistake. If you are moving around — and you had to; you had to close elements and then open different elements — you had different instructions, depending on what you were doing within the system. If you made three mistakes, you were shut out for a day.
[ Page 7996 ]

Now, the Speaker will understand the pressure that is on teachers during report cards. This is all done on your own time. You don’t get a day to do report cards. You do this in the evening on your own.

[1810]

Can you imagine, with a deadline coming, and you’re shut out of a computer system? You’re shut out of a computer system, right? That is the tool that you give to teachers.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Now, the Minister of Health thinks it’s funny. He has a profession that he’s proud of. He insists on being called “Doctor” as a veterinarian. Yet if we were to come and impose rules on him, tell him how to do things, as if we knew as government exactly what to do, beyond the same rules that teachers have…. Teachers have curriculum. Teachers have continuous improvement through professional development. All of these things exist.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Well, now the ministers have something to say. You had how many days to enter the debate? Was there not the opportunity to speak? Are we not suggesting a further six months for you to participate, maybe listen to some of your constituents about what actually goes on in classrooms, what happens to make sure that there are effective classrooms?

BCeSIS, the one shared service that this government imposes, is such a clunker, such a waste of money. It literally wasted $100 million. It was disposed of. It was thrown out because it was so ineffective. Now this minister is going to come in and do that more without any consultation — impose more. That’s the second element.

The third element is actually dumping the accountability strategy. This is a strategy imposed by this Premier on schools when she was Minister of Education. How much thought went into it? Pretty well zero. It was a dud from the beginning.

The way the system works is when these things are imposed, the system…. Teachers work, principals work to try to make it into something that is meaningful. The proof is here. It is now being removed. All those reports, as principal, I had to fill in, asking the question: who is reading this? Who does this go to that is going to meaningfully impact my school, my students? Nobody.

Nobody read it. It was the Premier as Minister of Education giving a speech. At the moment the speech was given, whether it was planned or not, she made this big pronouncement, and then the whole system had to spend millions, tens of millions, to try to adjust to a decision that probably had that amount of thought that went into it.

We set up school planning councils. How is that supposed to work? Figure it out yourselves. Try to make it work. In the end, what comes of it? It’s pulled. Bill 11 pulls it.

We had superintendents of achievement. The Speaker was part of that debate. I think you voted for it. They’re gone now. In fact, I think all of the members over there, including the ministers who had opinions before…. You voted for these things. Now they’re gone. What did they accomplish? Did they collect all the data and actually do anything real for students? No. They sure collected a fat salary. They did well. I’m sure they were pretty pleased to finish their careers that way. Was there anything tangible, anything good at all that was done for classrooms? Nothing.

What’s the last part? What’s the last reason that we should probably sit down and talk to people who understand data before we hand over student data? That would be a smart thing to do, to think through how that data is going to be used in a way that is responsible and fair to students. Yet the government has no time for that. No time to enter into debate. No time to show respect for teachers, for superintendents, for the opposition. I would suggest that 9/10 of the members on that side have no idea what they’re voting for. They simply stand in here and vote for it with no thought.

We spend millions and millions, as we properly should, on students — as we properly should. Public education is the most important gift we can give to our children. We hear from members. They will stand up and they will talk about people that are dear to them who have autism or have challenges. They expect the public education system to do what’s right for those children. Give them the opportunity that we have all enjoyed.

[1815]

My colleague from Cowichan Valley gave a speech about his experience in a mill where a manager showed respect to those on the ground who actually understood the job. Just by listening to them, he increased productivity. What a wonderful lesson for this House in dealing with teachers.

In my first job as a principal, I was given a principal mentor — Ian Robinson, a wonderful principal. He came in, and he said: “I will give you one piece of advice. You need to know what your job is.” I said: “Well, my job is to teach kids.” I was trying to impress the guy. He’d been doing it a long time. He said: “You have one job. You look after your teachers. Your teachers will look after your kids. You’re the principal. You look after your teachers. You make sure they can do their job.”

In a province with 4,000 classes with seven or more individualized education plans, this government is consciously making the decision to make those jobs impossible. This bill makes it worse.

I know that we need to move on. This is an issue, obviously, I feel strongly about, and there’s much more to speak about. But I’m getting a very clear signal that this is the end.
[ Page 7997 ]

I thank you, Madame Speaker, as always, for the opportunity to speak, and I thank you, as well, for your tolerance on whatever I chose to speak on. As always, I know that as a teacher, you share many of the experiences that I’ve had and understand and share the passion, as well, for public education. With that, I thank you.

[1820]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the question put forward by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers is on referral to a committee on Bill 11.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

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

[1825]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do rise to close debate on second reading of Bill 11. I listened with interest, both in the House and in my office, to what I would refer to as the long and repetitive comments from the members opposite about what’s wrong with Bill 11. I listened to that, and I believe that it deserves a measured and an appropriate response.

With that in mind and noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue my remarks, and I move adjournment of debate.

Hon. P. Fassbender moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,378,927,000 (continued).

D. Donaldson: We’re going to start off this afternoon talking about the children and youth with special needs service area that the ministry is responsible for. I was reading the minister’s answers to budget estimates last year, and in this service area she talked about ten programs being operated by the ministry for foundational programs offered through contract service providers.

[1435]

But in her words, there were no discrete numbers for the number of people being serviced by those contract service providers. She also talked about collecting better data for that, and, hopefully, that data would be ready by the end of this fiscal year.

My question to the minister under this is: how many youth and children are being serviced under contract ser-
[ Page 7998 ]
vice providers under the children and youth with special needs program area?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The way that child and youth special needs services are delivered, between services that are delivered directly through the ministry and a combination with contracted service providers…. We know that we serve approximately 30,000 children a year. We don’t break it down contract by contract because the contractors deliver the services differently depending on their circumstance. That is why we’re doing continued work with them. We started that work last year. A great deal of progress has been made.

We’re continuing to work with BCACDI and others on how they report data to us and how we compile that data. We would expect that by the end of this year we’ll have some better data but probably not, still, completely clear data as to numbers, based on the fact that the contracts are awarded to provide services more globally and not directly to a certain number of children.

D. Donaldson: In last year’s estimates the minister discussed the priority tool that has been implemented since, I believe, about 2012 and how it’s being used to collect better data in the ministry around the services being provided and if they’re being provided to children and youth with special needs. She also said that by the end of this fiscal year, which would have been March 31, the ministry will be collecting data so that the ministry can rely on it in a broader way with the partners.

Now, is the minister saying that that is not going to occur in a specific sense until the end of this fiscal year, and does she expect that by the end of this fiscal year the ministry will have a handle on the number of children being provided services through contracted services in this service area?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, we are continuing to do the work. It is more complex than one would hope in having individuals learn how to both accurately and consistently report the data across the various different contracts, so the work continues. The work on the tool continues.

We’re also working through our contracting process to look at how we are doing that process and how we can achieve more consistency there and, through our lean processes within the ministry, looking, as well, at how we can achieve more consistency. We’ll have a better sense of where that is at by the end of this fiscal year, I would expect, but probably not a complete picture.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I think the minister agreed last year with the critic at that point that it’s hard to know if the budget allocation in this specific service area is adequate unless you have a pretty firm grip on the number of children and youth who are requiring the services. So I look forward to hearing a little bit more firm figure at the end of next fiscal, and hopefully, in the meantime, not too many children fall through the gaps for these services.

In a related area, I know we canvassed extensively last week the issue of the fact that B.C. has missed the boat on tens of millions of dollars in funding for prevention services for children on reserve, federal dollars that have flowed to other provinces. Is the minister at all…? I know that she’s, hopefully, leaving for Ottawa tomorrow — not that I don’t want to see her in the House — because there’s some important business to be done there in regard to this topic.

[1445]

In order to support her argument for these prevention dollars from the federal government to flow to B.C., has the ministry got any idea of the demand for these kinds of services, through children and youth with special needs, on reserve so she can go and make the case in Ottawa?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, there is no restriction on who accesses CYSN services from the province in terms of their residency. Whether they are on reserve or off reserve, they are eligible to receive these services from our contracted service agencies.

We don’t break down the data to determine who is aboriginal, who is on reserve or off reserve, in terms of who is receiving those services. So the short answer is: no, I don’t have a clear number on that.

To clarify for the member, the reality is also that federally — so on reserve — services like speech therapy and services that we offer through CYSN are funded and offered through the health budgets federally. They wouldn’t be eligible for prevention dollars. It’s a different service line.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that clarification.

As far as wait-lists for family support programs — like respite care, youth in care support workers, professional supports to parents with children with special needs — how many children and youth are not getting the services they may be requesting? Does the minister have a figure on that?

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is some of the work that we’re continuing on this year to better refine, but at this point what we know is that there are 5,300 children waiting for a service. That does not mean they are not receiving a service. They may be receiving one, two, three or four services and waiting for another one, and they would still be captured by that number.

If they are deemed to be in high-priority need for a service, then they are definitely receiving some level of service at this time. But that does not mean that they won’t still appear on that list if they are waiting for a separate service.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today and being available to answer questions.
[ Page 7999 ]

On the services for children and youth with disabilities, I’m hoping I can get a breakdown. A portion of that is, I believe, for supported child development funding. Is it possible to break that down and let me know what is budgeted for the supported child development program for this coming fiscal?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: welcome to the debate.

The number for supported child development for this year is $56.8 million.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The reason I’m asking about this is I had an issue several months ago. A Port Alberni mother, second son assessed with autism — a high-needs situation.

She had arranged for him…. He was the right age to go into preschool, but she found that the local agency had denied her supported child development funding even though the son was assessed and so should have been eligible. But there was just not enough money available at the time, and she was told to possibly come back the next intake and try again, which would have meant the son would have lost the opportunity in the preschool. Luckily, they held the position in the preschool.

I just want to comment. I did come to the Legislature and talked to your staff at the office, and the funding was provided. Thank you so much for that. But it raises concerns. I’ve raised this before the minister’s time — another lifetime ago, it seems. But this issue has happened several times just with me as an MLA.

I’m just wondering. What do we tell parents that have kids that would lose a great opportunity, as the minister knows, getting that early time where the supported child development funding provides for an aide to allow the child to go to preschool — or to school, in many cases?

[1455]

We know the outcomes are much better, the chance is much better, for those kids. They get a much better chance if they get that opportunity early. So if they miss a year…. It’s a hard one to sell to those parents, and I don’t blame them for being upset about that. That’s the long way around.

Can the minister explain how we are to deal with parents that have children that are assessed and, therefore, are eligible, but there appears to be no funding at the local level?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, the member will know that certainly for children who do end up with a diagnosis of autism, funding automatically kicks in for those children right away, for their families to access all sorts of early interventions for those children.

That said, those children and those parents may still be looking for additional supports. Those additional supports would come through the SCD programs and so on. It’s a priority area for us. Despite challenges in the ministry over time, pressures in various areas, this area has remained a consistent area and certainly one where we maintain the budget to ensure that the services are available. That said, they are services that are provided through a wide array of contracted agencies throughout the province, all of which, up to today, have prioritized service delivery — who gets in and when and how — in their own way.

We are looking to, through our conversations — I’m sure the member heard the previous answers — and our work with the BCACDI provincial network, bring consistency to that across the province to ensure that we all see the priority areas the same way. There is continued work going on in that arena.

I do appreciate that the member is advocating for his client where they were finding a challenge. Certainly, we hope that doesn’t happen for families, but when it does, it’s certainly the right and the obligation of the members to bring them forward.

D. Donaldson: In last year’s estimates the minister had a discussion with the critic around performance measures for children and youth with special needs.

[1500]

In this particular service area, unlike the answer the minister gave to my question in other service areas, she actually discussed caseloads as a potential tool for performance measurement. What is the caseload for an MCFD children and youth with special needs worker?

Hon. S. Cadieux: It varies a great deal. It would range from 60 to 190, the average being about 117. But it’s important to understand this is not the same type of social work as child protection, for example. The vast majority of cases are transactional, meaning that a family would come in requiring a service or because they’ve just had an autism diagnosis. Once the funding or service is in place, they have very little ongoing contact with a social worker. In fact, the social worker is not required to interact with the family on a regular basis. That’s the vast majority.

There are, of course, situations within CYSN where there would be high interaction with a family and where the workload would be greater. That would be something like the period for CLBC transition for youth transitioning from services in our ministry to CLBC. There would be a high level of interaction and workload for a caseworker in that case.

D. Donaldson: From what the minister stated before, there are three demand- or caseload-driven areas under this service area when it comes to supports — autism, nursing supports and medical benefits. She has said that those are demand-driven. I understand that.

Last year on the record she said how that is funded with no overall increase in the budget — or very little. Is
[ Page 8000 ]
that underspends in other program areas or requests for contingencies? Can she inform, in the last budget year, 2014-15, how many requests for contingencies were submitted by the ministry to meet the demands in those demand-driven areas?

[1505-1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We made no contingency asks in relation to this. We were able, within our $1.3-whatever-billion budget, to find the ability to meet the demands.

D. Donaldson: I would like to know what that cost. When the minister says, “underspends in other programs….” We know from a Representative for Children and Youth report in the fall that in a five-year period, 2008 to 2013, not only was $37 million lost in the ministry’s budget, but she said that that works out to $100 million lost in real dollars, with inflation. When you talk about underspends and you’ve already lost $100 million, then it really makes me wonder about what services become impacted by that.

If the minister could respond with how much the demand-driven services cost the ministry in 2014-15.

Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarity, in fact, there have not been any budget reductions in the ministry. The $37 million that the member referenced was for programs or services delivered through the ministry that were transferred to other ministries and are being delivered there. Hence, the budget for those services, like HR, transferred to the ministry that is now delivering.

The amount, in the last fiscal year for the demand-driven services, that was over budget was approximately $11 million, which is less than 1 percent of our entire budget. That is why we were able to find it within our budget to meet the demand this year.

D. Donaldson: One of the demand-driven areas, of course, as the minister has pointed out, is autism services. Along with a few of my colleagues, I was able to meet recently with the Autism Support Network. I’m sure the minister is very familiar with them — amazing parents, volunteers, that do incredible advocacy work on behalf of their children and families. They had a question, and they also informed me of delays. Earlier the minister talked about services for these demand-driven areas like autism kicking in right away.

[1515]

They point out that the best outcomes for children on the autism spectrum require early intensive intervention, and that can make amazing differences to services later on, plus the ability for these kids to be able to function to be all they can be. Currently children in B.C. have to wait up to 18 months, is what the Autism Support Network said, for assessment and diagnosis and then more time to be accepted for funding, losing that critical learning time.

To the minister, what plan does she have to address these diagnosis wait-lists for young children with developmental delays, such as autism?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I know the member is well aware that B.C.’s autism program is unique across the country in that it is the only program with a no-wait-list policy for children with autism and their families.

That said, it takes three ministries to deliver that program. The Ministry of Health delivers the assessment and diagnoses portion of that program — assessment and diagnoses that are available through the B.C. Autism Assessment Network, BCAAN, which is at Sunny Hill hospital, or through private clinics. MCFD provides the funding supports direct to families to support the interventions for their child. The Ministry of Education provides the school-based supports.

Any questions relating in more detail to assessments and diagnostics would be best directed to the Ministry of Health.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I will be doing that in the Ministry of Health estimates, which are upcoming, but I don’t think it’s fairly characterizing this situation — that there is a no-wait-list policy — when you say to a family that is trying to access autism services: “Sure, here are the dollars, but by the way, you’re going to have to wait 18 months to access the service.” That’s in no way a no-wait-list policy as far as, I think, the parents are concerned and for any reasonable-minded person.

I’d like to move on, in this service area question time, to some of the contract agencies that the ministry contracts to provide services around special needs. I’ve talked a lot with a number of these agencies, as well as with the B.C. Association of Child Development and Intervention that the minister referenced in one of her earlier answers. They have some major concerns around the sustainability of the funding that they get to provide the level of services that they are providing and that they’re doing such a great job of providing.

In one area the minister talked about the economic stability mandate in earlier discussions under these estimates. I believe it’s about $5.6 million in this budget cycle that was allocated to cover wage and benefit increases in the 2015-16 fiscal year. This was a commitment made last year in estimates to do this for these contracted agencies.

They point out that the economic stability mandate is a 1 percent increase on 80 percent of the total contract amount. Inherent in that is that the ministry is saying 20 percent of a contract that they award to one of these agencies is administration or non-direct service delivery, I guess, even though the ministry policy is that they will look more favourably upon a 10 to 15 percent administrative parts in a contract.

[1520]

Why wouldn’t that 1 percent be more in line some-
[ Page 8001 ]
where between 85 and 90 percent of the total contract amount, rather than the 80 that is being instituted by the ministry now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, just for clarity here and for the member, this is not MCFD policy. This is PSEC policy. It’s across ministries and services — the whole mandate. The intent is to provide dollars to cover the whole wage increase.

Just like it has been for social service ministries and other ministries of government, the reality is it’s challenging times. There are always more demands than there is ability to pay. That said, we understand that it is increasingly challenging for social service agencies to provide the services to families that we want and that they want to be able to provide.

[1525]

We were pleased and are pleased to see that the economic stability mandate was funded and that the wage increases are covered for those agencies. What this does not fund is increases in agencies’ overall administration or other costs that they may see rising. We recognize that, and we’re working with those agencies to be as flexible as we can on their contracts to make sure that they can be sustainable. That said, if there are specific agencies that don’t feel that their wage increases are covered, they should be talking to us about those.

D. Donaldson: The question around the $5.6 million that’s included in this budget that we’re discussing today to cover the economic stability mandate…. Is that part of the base contract funding for future years? As well, if that’s the case, then why wasn’t the cooperative gains process included in base funding for future years — in other words, the unfunded wage and benefit increase from 2013?

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The economic stability mandate is ongoing. For this year it’s $5.4 million; next year, $11.7 million; and the year after, $22.7 million to fund those.

The cooperative gains mandate, however, was cross-government. It was set also by PSEC, and the complete premise of that mandate was that any increases in salary were to be found and offset by savings in those direct sectors. So no sector or ministry received funding to offset the wage increases. They were to be self-funded from within.

The Chair: Member.

D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome.

I have a number of questions in this area, not just in these contract services but in special needs overall. In the time context we have left, I’ll provide written questions to the minister after.

What I understand, in a closing comment on that, is that many of these contract service providers, through the Association of Child Development and Intervention, are finding ways to reduce costs, but it’s things like less home-based intervention and cutting professional development budgets, which I don’t think is a very conducive way of providing improved services to children with special needs.

What I’d like to move on to now is the children and youth mental health service area. I don’t know if you have the correct staff or need a minute. I’ll fire away, and then you can let them know what the question was when they get up here.

[1530]

The Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre was canvassed last year in estimates. Is it up and running?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer is yes.

D. Donaldson: How many beds are in the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre, and how many of them are filled as of today?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member, could he clarify? Is he talking about the Maples adolescent treatment facility or the complex care facility?

D. Donaldson: Maples, please.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Maples facility has capacity for 22 residential treatment beds. The number usually is close to capacity, but it does change fairly frequently. We don’t have a number for today.

D. Donaldson: What would be the current wait time to be accepted into the 22 residential treatment beds at Maples?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We’re double-checking on two things here. But what I can tell the member is that in 2014 the Maples admitted 219 youth to the facility or programs and that we’re not aware that there’s any challenge with folks having access to the Maples because, in fact, there is an ebb and flow. People come in. They’re treated. They leave. We do have capacity at the centre on an ongoing basis.

[1535]

D. Donaldson: Well, I am familiar with a case from the northwest of a 16-year-old with complex mental health issues who was told it would be a seven-month wait to get into Maples. I think that information is somewhat disconcerting when I hear an answer like that come from the minister. There appears to be a wait for these kinds
[ Page 8002 ]
of mental health services for children and youth, and I think that’s something that the minister needs to familiarize herself with a little bit more.

Can the minister inform…? Last year there was a discussion around regional centres, in the context of Maples and mental health services, and that two of five would be operational by the end of June 2014 and the other three operational by March 31, 2015, as the minister stated. How many of the five regional centres are operational?

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify for the member, there are currently 12 of 22 beds full at the Maples Centre, meaning there are ten that are not currently occupied. As it relates to how programs are delivered at the Maples, it is not one program. It’s not one mechanism.

There is, in fact, a mix of assessment, treatment, training and consultative services out of there, including a response program which can have a wait of up to four to six weeks. There are care plan consultants. There’s the Dala program, which has up to a six-month wait to get in because of its unique service. There’s the Crossroads program with approximately a two-week wait. The Bifrost program, only available in the Lower Mainland, has up to a six-month wait, and it’s a community-based program.

It varies depending on the situation for the youth in question. It is very specific to the specific needs, and each program requires specifically trained individuals. Therefore, there may be waits for some programs.

Now, as it relates to the complex care unit on the Maples — that’s an additional six beds — it has been open since June. We have very intentionally gone slow in populating that so that through the training and licensing of this very unique facility, we’ve done the due diligence. It is now fully operational.

The community-based beds that the member references and has asked about…. We, again, are purposely going slow on that, allowing time to do the thorough work that was required to get the complex care unit up and all of the training done. That is the hub for all of the training that will be done for the community care beds as well.

The RFP has just gone out for Prince George. That will be the first of the community-based sites, and we expect that that, as well as the Okanagan, will be operational by the end of the fiscal year.

D. Donaldson: The minister stated last year that two of the five regional centres would be operational by the end of June 2014. Now I believe she’s informing us that two of the five will be operational…. Well, they’re not operational yet. June till now is at least eight months behind.

The minister seemed pretty confident last year that two of the five would be operational by the end of June 2014 and the other three by March 31, 2015. What’s been the cause of the delay?

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What we undertook to create with the complex care unit at the Maples is not simple. I’m sure that the member can understand that. It’s a trauma-based care model and very specialized. The hiring took much longer than expected. In fact, we had to go back two times in order to be able to hire enough staff to operate the facility. We then had to take time to train them adequately, because the model of care there and the consistency that was required takes time. That took longer.

Following that, the licensing process also took longer than expected with the facility. When we opened we were licensed for two beds. Then we moved along and are fully operational now at six.

The outreach workers, though, that are in communities and that will do much of the work in terms of re-engaging people back into community…. Those workers have also, through this process, been trained and are out in community and working, and it’s working well. They will support the complex care beds in the community when they are in place. But clearly, one cannot start with the satellites. One has to start with the hub.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I appreciate that things could be complex in this service area. Yet when the minister makes unequivocal statements — not “we hope” — that there’ll be two by the end of June of last year — I’m looking at Hansard from last year — followed by three final additional sites by the end of ’14-15, we have to take her at her word.

What I assume from there is that the planning wasn’t done to understand the complexity before this model was implemented.

[1550]

The model, from what I understand in the minister’s explanation, was that…. It was a model to be more efficient, save money and improve care by having the children and youth discharged from a facility like Maples into regional centres where they could get improved care. So that is an admission that the current model isn’t as effective as it could be.

Are the children and youth being discharged from Maples being discharged directly back into their communities? What improvements have been done to the current model in the meantime, while we’re waiting for this new model to get implemented, so that those children and youth are getting improved services? That’s the whole reason for the model change in the first place.

[1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The comparisons or the correlations he’s attempting to suggest, in fact, are comparing apples to oranges because it’s not the same thing. The Maples is a child and youth mental health program, or base program. A child does not have to come into care to be able to access the services at the Maples. There’s no change in the planning for discharge of youth from the Maples or as a
[ Page 8003 ]
result of any of the work we’re doing with complex care.

The complex care and community beds that we’re discussing, and the time frame in which we are enacting those, have no impact on the work of the Maples or on the community-based work that the Maples program does with families and with communities when those young people return home to their families.

For example, the Connect Parent group, which was developed at the Maples, is an adjunct to the programs. It’s a ten-week program, which has actually even been adopted internationally, to improve parenting capacity and skills. In 2014 there were 154 Maples-trained Connect Parent group leaders running 78 parent groups provincially. Since 2006 Maples has trained approximately 735 Connect Parent leaders around the province. More than 6,000 caregivers and families in B.C. have been served by this group.

That is some of the community-based care and ongoing work that is done and that connects patients in their communities, when they leave the Maples, through the CYMH program.

The complex care beds and the community beds that we’re talking about are under the CFCSA. A child has to be brought into care in order to access those programs. They are a unique set of programs for a unique population.

D. Donaldson: I have a number of questions on community mental health services. In lieu of the time constraints, I’ll submit those as written questions as well.

I do have a colleague who, due to other commitments in the Legislature, wasn’t able to ask her question around autism services. I would like to be able to have her ask that question. I’m sorry it doesn’t flow with the way we’re flowing right now, but I know you have the staff here to answer the question. I’ll defer to my colleague from the north coast.

J. Rice: I wanted to ask the minister in regards to Angie and Robert Robinson, who tragically died a year ago in Prince Rupert. I know she knows the case well and will probably not comment to specifics. Last April, in regards to this case, the minister had been quoted in a few media outlets as saying that there were 11 professionals that provide autism services in Prince Rupert. My first question is: could she provide a list of what those 11 service providers are?

[1600]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Happy to provide you with that list. We don’t have it with us here. We can get it for you and deliver it.

J. Rice: The minister also said at the time that while the deaths are tragic, it’s up to families to work with their social worker to ensure they’re getting all the services “they’re both entitled to and need for their child.” One issue that we’ve identified in the north and that the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has said — and what I’ve found — particularly for the north region, is that those resources are scarce, if existent at all.

The challenge I’m trying to identify here is perhaps: if you are provided the funding for autism supports for your child, where are the services that match with that funding? My question is: what has she done to review this, to look at what services are available in the north, particularly in Prince Rupert, on this?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would note for the member that the coroner is doing an inquest in this situation, which we are participating in, of course. As well, the director is doing a review as it relates to the specific services and so on. Certainly happy to provide a briefing to the member on the particular service area.

D. Donaldson: I just wanted to get some clarification here. My understanding was — and I’m not sure if this is the understanding of the staff and you as well — that we had until about four o’clock today to go on these estimates. Okay. That’s good. Then I’ll just, out of respect for the other staff and the other minister and ministries, make a couple of brief wrap-up comments.

I just wanted to say thanks to the minister for being reasonably quick with her answers, in some instances longer than others — I’ve had experience with some other budget estimates, so I was happy the way we progressed as far as the tempo — and to congratulate the ministry in trying new things and new initiatives. You need to be commended for that.

What concerns me is the political will when it come to budget resources to accomplish the new initiatives. Just a few of them off the top of my head were the new hires that the minister said were going to cost an additional $12 million, the adoption initiatives but no new baseline increase to reflect those, with autism, the demand centres for that area for children and youth with special needs being $11 million last year.

These numbers add up. Trying to do more with less, I have concerns about what more will fall off the table as far as wait-lists or who’s going to be left behind and who’s going to fall through the cracks. That was a theme that was of concern to me in these estimates.

Another concern is operating in silos between the ministries. When I discussed the Tsilhqot’in decision in relation to wellness of children and what that impact has, the minister talked about referring me to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations. We know 53 percent of the kids in care are of First Nations or aboriginal descent, far out of the proportion that makes up the aboriginal ancestry people in the province.

It flies in the face that these issues are interconnected, and so are the solutions interconnected. I think that we
[ Page 8004 ]
need to think about a more holistic approach across ministries, and I think the Representative for Children and Youth has pointed that out in her recent reports in the fall as well.

[1605]

Finally, the funding for enhanced prevention that we missed the boat on — on tens of millions that have been accessed by other provinces so far. I know the minister is heading to Ottawa, or plans were in place to head to Ottawa, this week. I hope she has a meeting with the minister. I certainly offer any assistance I can provide for her so that B.C. can finally get its share of these prevention dollars.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In closing, I think I’d like, first, to thank all of the ministry staff that have supported me through this process. I neglected to introduce many of them as they came and went, but they are dedicated and work hard to provide me with the information I need to do my job, and I appreciate that very much.

I know that the member is aware that each year we are faced with fiscal challenges and difficult decisions. That’s not unique to the Ministry of Children and Families. That’s the reality of governing, and that would not be a different case with a different government. The reality is that that faces all governments.

It is only through the dedication and expertise of our staff and our partners that we are continually successful in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable British Columbians. I feel that we do an admirable job of that and certainly feel our front-line staff do the most admirable job on a daily basis in very, very difficult circumstances that many of us would not choose to take on.

Ensuring that struggling families across British Columbia have the supports and services that they need to thrive is certainly what the ministry is all about. Of course, I certainly have an additional passion for ensuring that children with disabilities have access to what they need to thrive and be all that they can be. It’s what we remain focused on, and it’s what we will continue to remain focused on moving forward.

I’m confident that our work this year will continue to prove beneficial and have positive impacts on the children of the province. I look forward to continuing that work and appreciate the members’ interest and questions of the ministry.

The Chair: Are there any further questions? Hearing no further questions, I’ll now call Vote 17.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,378,927,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’ll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Ashton in the chair.

The committee met at 4:12 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. C. Oakes: I do.

The Chair: Please go ahead.

Hon. C. Oakes: First, I would like to take a moment just to recognize the folks of Cariboo North, who have supported me through this exciting journey. We have the opportunity…. I’m sure I, with the hon. critic, would like to thank our family and friends who ensure that we’re able to do this job.

I’m joined today by some exceptional staff that I’m incredibly proud of. I’m joined by distinguished professionals of the dedicated public service with the province of British Columbia. I’m pleased to have our Deputy Minister, Becky Denlinger; and assistant deputy ministers Jay Schlosar; Melanie Stewart, for arts, culture, sport and gaming grants; and David Curtis, management services and the ministry’s executive financial officer. As well, we have Heather Brazier, executive lead for integrated policy, legislation and operations division.

A number of others will be joining us throughout the day. It’s always nice for me to recognize, so that we know who we’re talking with…. These individuals are also supported by other ministry staff.

Other key leaders will be joining us today, and many are here today from our Crown corporations. I would like to welcome Kelly Mann from the B.C. Games Society, Angela Williams from the Royal B.C. Museum and Connie Fair from the B.C. Assessment Authority.

As well, we have Arn van Iersel, acting Auditor General for Local Government, who will be with us for questions related to that office. I should note to the member opposite that under the Committee of Supply, the Office of the AGLG falls under a separate vote from the main vote of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone. They do so much amazing work and get us ready for estimates. I know it’s a tremendous amount of work and effort to make sure that all of our information is here, and I very much want to thank them.

[1615]

The ministry’s key responsibilities are, of course, working with our British Columbia local governments — 189 local governments across British Columbia — who really work to ensure that our communities are a great place to live and work and invest in.

Of course, we also support our talented artists, our creative art groups and dynamic cultural organizations in communities across British Columbia. We also support sports in British Columbia, which ensures that we can showcase our province by hosting a number of different events.

I am pleased to note that within the context of the balanced budget, funding for our ministry’s community-based programs remains strong. Budget 2015 ensures that record levels of community-based funding for arts and sports will be sustained.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging exceptional staff in my CA office — both April and Kiley, who do an outstanding job, and, here in Victoria, Emma, Yvette, Angella, Cam and Jordan.

Before we begin with questions, it would be helpful, if possible, if the member opposite could provide a quick outline of how they would like to organize the debate. This will allow our office to ensure that we have the appropriate staff available.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister’s welcome and appreciation for her staff. I, too, want to thank them for all the hard work that they do in supporting local governments.

As we move forward, we recognize that some are more challenged than others in having access to professional staff. It makes a huge difference to those communities, so I, too, want to offer gratitude to staff that help those communities and also that bring our arts and sporting communities together in making sure that they have what they need.

I do appreciate the minister’s request for identifying some sort of agenda, and I had had intentions of getting this to the minister late last week. But I, of course, was finishing this work over the weekend and so really couldn’t. I have to organize some of my colleagues, so I didn’t get organized until, actually, just a little while ago.

My thought was that we would do mostly general local government today. My colleague from Sunshine Coast will be asking questions around the arts tomorrow between 11 and 12. That would be when those questions would be asked.

Tomorrow, starting at 1:30, after the lunch break, would be when I would start with sports, so we could make sure that those who are responsible for that portfolio don’t need to be here until 1:30. Then they can finish, and then we can go back to local government. If that works with the minister, that would work well with me as well.

If I might begin with my first question, I’m wondering if the minister could please just let us know a little bit about the increase in her budget and detail where the budget increase is being allocated.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for providing us with a little bit of an update for our staff. If I may just ask one more question of that, just for the Auditor General for Local Government — when you may want to consider asking him questions as well.

[1620]

I can go through the questions that you ask now, or would you like to consider…?

S. Robinson: I do appreciate wanting to know when the Auditor General…. I appreciate his being available to answer some questions.

It really just depends how quickly we move through some of these. I do have a range of questions. I have no way of gauging the amount of time that it will take.

You know what? Why don’t I just make it simpler? I will save those for tomorrow, because I think that there’s a whole range of questions. I don’t think that we’re going to get through this whole range of questions in the next two hours, and I can move them around. We’ll do them tomorrow after we do Sport.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much to the hon. member opposite for providing that clarification.

The changes of the increase in the budget for Community, Sport and Cultural Development. There was an overall increase of $7.11 million to the ministry’s estimates budget since last year. The increase in these results include the following.

We have a $3 million increase in small community and regional district grants, due to the return of normal funding levels. We accelerate some of these small community grants to provide those supports for local governments who may require them earlier on. And $2 million for traffic-fine revenue grants, due to the return of normal funding levels — after, again, we accelerate those grants.

As well, $2 million for the University Endowment Lands public works, due to an increase in infrastructure planning and engineering costs. Finally, $110,000 for a 1 percent salary and benefit increase for the BCGEU staff.

As well, for fiscal 2015-2016 ministries were given the opportunity to adjust budget allocations in order to realign budgets with some of the operational requirements. For fiscal 2015-2016, salaries and benefits were increased by $902,000. This increase was primarily due to $496,000 reallocation to align budgets with operational needs; $203,000 from the inclusion of the B.C. athletic commissioner, which was not previously included as part of the ministry’s base budget. These expenses can be recovered through event licences.

Those are changes that we’ve made over the past year. As well, $110,000 for a 1 percent salary and benefit increase, as I mentioned previously.
[ Page 8006 ]

On the operating side the fiscal 2015-2016 operating costs did increase by $1.576 million. This increase was primarily due to $1.875 million for increased funding for the University Endowment Lands public works, and $197,000, as we mentioned, for the B.C. athletic commission. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $496,000 to realign the budget with operational requirements.

An overall decrease to transfers and external recoveries is mainly due to the maturity of the federal funding for the infrastructure programs and that the same minor adjustments were made to reflect the change in benefit chargeback rate from 25 percent in 2014-2015 to 24.8 percent in 2015-2016.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for a very thorough and detailed…. My hand was flying across the page writing those down. I appreciate that.

I’m also wondering if the minister can outline her workplan for the year and where she’s going to be focusing her energy and staff energy.

[1625]

Hon. C. Oakes: We have Gary Paget with us, as well, and Jay Schlosar, who are assisting us.

First, if I may, just maybe do a quick review of what some of the mandate items were this past year as they work into this next year.

We have been working with the northwest communities on northwest readiness, ensuring that those communities are ready for the economic development opportunities around LNG. That includes $1 million of asset management planning support for those communities, ensuring that there are supports with interns up in those communities to ensure that a lot of housing readiness projects…. There was a lot of socioeconomic work that was done up in the northwest, and we’ll, of course, continue to do that work with those communities.

We’re also, of course, working closely with the communities in the northeast with a similar type of support that we’re looking at as we move forward to ensure support around economic development in those areas.

We are working to look at, of course, the New Build Canada. We negotiated with the federal government these new small community grants, and those will be coming out shortly — a great opportunity for local governments for critical water, wastewater. Really, the pipes in the ground are what we’re clearly focusing on this current round. I will say that we received over 160 applications, so we’re highly over-subscribed on the Build Canada, but that just means that it’s a great opportunity for us to work with lots of local governments to ensure that we have support.

We’re also developing and passing…. I would like to thank the member opposite for the work that she’s doing on the expense limits with the special committee that’s currently travelling across the province and doing special consultations to identify how we can support that next phase of LECFA, LESAA — modernizing local election campaign supports. The expense limit legislation will be brought in. We’ll be working to bring it in this fall.

Of course, something that was a highlight in my mandate this past year was the Canada Winter Games. Having that up close to my hometown in Prince George was probably something I’ll remember for a significant amount of time.

I was incredibly proud of how our region hosted athletes, coaches, sponsors from across British Columbia. I think it’s an excellent testament, as we look at one of our mandate items moving forward, our five-year hosting strategy, that there are abilities in every single sector and every single area of this province of British Columbia to host and to showcase our communities and what a great place it is to live in, in British Columbia.

We’ve completed the five-year hosting strategy, and we’ll be launching that May 8 at the North Central Local Government Association. We’ll be there. We’re very proud to be working with a number of partners to ensure that we’re maximizing every single opportunity to bring investment, to bring new, exciting events to really help our athletes to grow in their performance.

As well, we’re working with the parliamentary secretary, the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to look at what the rural dividend is going to look like. We’re currently working on what that framework is going to look like and what some of those principles are going to look like.

As well, we’re working with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to ensure that cultural assets are being maximized to drive tourism opportunities across British Columbia. Really, what that means is we’re working closely with visitor centres, arts councils and chambers of commerce throughout British Columbia to really identify those cultural gems that each of us have in our communities.

[1630]

It’s really an opportunity to get out into communities, have those conversations, and I encourage everyone, members opposite and on both sides, if there’s that cultural gem in your community that should be on an inventory list, please provide that to us.

We’re also working on and presenting a creative economy, creative workforce. What does that look like? How do we ensure that we are growing this vibrant sector? We’re proud of the work we’re doing there, and that will be launched shortly as well.

We’re also working on the restructure grant side on the governance with local governments. For example, we’ve provided some restructuring funds for communities like Saltspring that are really looking at: how do we modernize local governments in many parts of the province of British Columbia? We continue to support our local government throughout the province to ensure that we’re
[ Page 8007 ]
modernizing and ensuring that local governance meets the needs of citizens today.

S. Robinson: I’m grateful to the minister for outlining in greater detail than is in the mandate letter. I’ll be at the LMLGA, so I look forward to hearing about the announcement that has to with the hosting program. It’s one of my very specific questions, so good on the minister for chopping one of my questions down.

There’s more to the mandate letter that I’d like the minister to address. In particular, there is some comment about her government being “committed to ensuring a common platform of compensation and accountability principles to be implemented across the broader public sector.” I’m hoping that the minister can speak to that. What does that mean?

I’d also like to ask about what was called “the attached document” — I don’t have it here with me — about the new common public sector principles and accompanying instructions for implementing these principles across the public sector organizations and agencies. If she could speak to that, that would be great.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for identifying a portion of the mandate letter which we can have greater dialogue on. First, maybe what I’ll talk about is the one-taxpayer principle that we have implemented around accountability for our Crown corporations. Really, what that is — and if I have the wrong question, I can come back….

We have an accountability principle where we meet with our Crown agencies, and we identify…. We have the discussion about how we ensure, through the public sector, that we’re meeting with each of our Crown organizations, that we’ve got a set of principles that we sign off on and that letters go out through our ministries about expectations.

The E and Y report. That’s the second piece.

There are two components to that. The second component to that is more on the local government side of working closely with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to look at a report that was released — the Ernst and Young report. It was identified through core review that there are variations in models used for setting compensation, both if you look at the B.C. public service sector and at local governments.

[1635]

It’s a way to have that conversation about how we can do some benchmarking and information-sharing with local governments to help support them with that.

We have met with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. We’re looking at developing a framework about how we can have that conversation at the exact same time as we’re talking about the Strong Fiscal Futures, which they wanted to have. We met with UBCM roughly two weeks ago to talk about how we move forward on those dialogues.

S. Robinson: I’ll blend two questions into one. Then I’m going to let my colleague ask some questions.

When government increased the MSP premiums, was there some sort of consultation with local governments about how that might impact their budgets? Same thing around hydro increases. As part of their offerings to their employees, local governments often include that as part of the benefits package. Of course, they have their own hydro costs. This would have severe impacts on many local governments.

Hon. C. Oakes: First of all, we recognize that with local governments, we need to ensure we’re supporting them. That’s why when we look at the small community grants, the traffic-fine revenue, that we are ensuring that we’re supporting communities with a variety of different types of funds to the communities.

As well, on Earth Day we had the great opportunity to reannounce the climate action revenue incentive program. Really, this is a conditional grant program provided through local governments across British Columbia that have signed on to the B.C. climate action charter. It assists local governments to become more carbon-neutral in internal operations and to take actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions within their communities.

Our grants that we provided…. It was $8.4 million. So it is a way to help support local governments with increased costs.

G. Heyman: I have a couple of questions for the minister specific to point 9 in her current mandate letter. Point 9 reads: “Develop and present to cabinet a plan to grow B.C.’s creative economy and creative workforce.”

Last week we saw a tremendous presentation from B.C. Creates, a number of organizations within the creative sector, representing digital media, music, film and publishing, that came together to talk about the important contributions they do and can make on an expanded basis to B.C.’s economy.

My question to the minister is: can she outline where the development of the plan currently sits, as well as what elements of a plan are under active consideration even if not finalized at this point?

[1640]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the hon. member for the question. This is very exciting. It was great to be at the presentation to talk about our creative economy and see the tremendous potential that we have. I believe significantly that when we build in this foundation of our creative workforce, there are tremendous opportunities for all of us in British Columbia.
[ Page 8008 ]

If I may, Melanie Stewart is the ADM for arts and culture, and Gillian Wood is with her as well, as executive director.

B.C., in fact, has the highest number of artists per capita in Canada, with a growth rate of 74 percent between 1989 and 2013. We have vibrant aboriginal First Nations artists and cultural organizations across British Columbia and a strong reputation and have developed an interesting number of clusters within the creative economy — including digital media, film, television, music, broadcasting — throughout British Columbia and over $1 billion in annual film and television production activity, which we learned about when we were celebrating the creative economy week.

The province of B.C. has made significant investments in the creative economy, with various types of initiatives and programs led by multiple, different ministries. The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development itself invests over $57 million a year to develop the diverse talents in emerging, established creative workers and not-for-profit organizations in over 200 communities in the province of British Columbia.

It’s significant that when you look at artists and the creative economy, it’s in every pocket of British Columbia. It’s significantly important, through our ministry, to ensure that we’re supporting each of those communities.

The return on this investment in the non-profit creative sector is very impressive. Nationally, the top 1,558 arts organizations generate $1.56 billion in total revenues. In B.C. the 187 established not-for-profit arts organizations funded through the B.C. Arts Council leveraged an additional $200 million from a $13 million provincial investment — at a rate of 15 to 1.

I would like to really, on record, say a significant thank-you to the B.C. Arts Council for the work that they do in ensuring that there is support throughout British Columbia. The economic impact of such investments for individual communities is more obvious. For example, B.C. Arts Council funded $22,500 to Island Mountain Arts for the 2015 ArtsWells summer festival, which attracts 1,500 people to the region. A $15,200 investment to the Diwali Fest in Vancouver and Surrey generated an estimated quarter-million dollars in direct economic activity and 13,000 visitors.

This is the type of work that we’re also doing in looking at our event host strategies. In recognition of the significant impact that can be generated by building the creative sector for British Columbia, the B.C. government launched the B.C. Creative Futures strategy in 2013. The strategy includes, specifically, programs to develop that next generation of creative, collaborative and innovative workers by providing more opportunities for youth to be exposed to art and by ensuring young artists are job-ready.

[1645]

The strategy includes — and this is what we’re pulling together on the mandate item — through the Creative Futures, $113 million for the new campus for the Emily Carr University of Art and Design; $4.1 million for increased youth engagement in the arts — that includes programs increasing exposure to professional artists and arts in B.C. schools; $1.75 million for scholarships and job experience within the arts; 272 scholarships; 134 early career development placements; as well, funding expanded to the early career development placements by 25 percent in year 2 due to high demand; and finally, $2.5 million for the formation of Creative B.C.

This government will continue to build on all of this success and ensure that these programs are strong and stable. That will make up the creative economy plan that will be moving forward.

G. Heyman: Just for certainty — I certainly appreciate the contributions of the creative sector, the growth of the creative sector, the contributions both culturally and economically, and I understand the minister’s pride in its success to date as well — should I take the final comments of the minister to be the sum total of a plan that was presented to cabinet, or is there more to come? The mandate letter clearly talks about developing and presenting to cabinet “a plan to grow B.C.’s creative economy.”

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be launching the new creative economy plan in the months ahead, building on what the B.C. Creative Futures plan was previous.

G. Heyman: My last question. I have a number of points I want to make first. One of the things that was noticeably absent in the budget speech as a description of the diversified provincial economy was any mention of the creative industries. People in the sector looked for it; they didn’t find it. I looked for it; I didn’t find it.

I was on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, so I had the opportunity to hear the submissions and ask questions of representatives of the film industry as well as representatives of the Canadian Media Production Association, Music B.C. and others who made a presentation with respect to Creative B.C. They pointed out that PricewaterhouseCoopers’ report Opportunity B.C. 2020 pointed to $4 billion in gross domestic product from the sector — over 80,000 British Columbians employed. That figure is now up to 85,000.

B.C. Creates talked in their presentation about wanting to make sure that they work with government to ensure that Creative B.C. as an agency is adequately funded. They used as examples…. Creative Saskatchewan has a budget of $7.4 million. Ontario Media Development Corporation has between $30 million and $40 million. Nova Scotia, $5.3 million, while Creative B.C. is at $2.2 million.

Now, they appreciate Creative B.C. and what it does and the success it’s had. I’ve met with Creative B.C., and I’m very impressed. But they suggested that a relatively
[ Page 8009 ]
modest increase in the budget would enable Creative B.C. to more aggressively do some things that they thought would have a significant return and, history says, probably would.

Specifically, they thought Creative B.C., with some greater capitalization, could look at project development, content development, export preparedness, market research, as well as assisting with marketing. They were looking to the budget and the Finance Minister to make a modest increase in Creative B.C.’s budget. They asked for an additional $12.8 million over what’s there today. They also pointed out that whatever goes to Creative B.C. is always leveraged by additional grants from the private sector and is a catalyst for private financing coming to a number of projects.

Recognizing the constraints in the budget…. Also, I want to recognize that Creative B.C. is not in this minister’s ministry. Responsibility rests with the Minister of Jobs. I understand that. But as part of the plan, I’m wondering if the minister has been advocating for an enhanced role and increased funding for Creative B.C.

[1650]

I think B.C. Creates has made a very strong and credible case that a relatively modest increase could help the sector grow substantially and make great contributions to B.C.’s economy, to our cultural development as well as to the return on investment that comes from more people working and paying more taxes.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question, to the hon. member opposite.

It’s interesting how British Columbia has approached the creative economy, and I think it’s a testament to how important it is. Multiple ministries have a role in supporting the creative economy. The member opposite mentioned the Jobs, Tourism Ministry around the film, and we had a significant investment announcement. It’s one thing to have it in the throne speech, but it’s another thing when you actually get it in the finance, in the budget. That’s when the rubber hits the road, because that’s where things actually help support communities on the ground.

We’ve got the digital animation or visual effects tax credit. The DAVE tax credit has been expanded. Of course, the interactive digital media tax credit has also been included. I mean, there were some great announcements that happened in the budget.

I would also like to reflect on, really, what our ministry does around the creative economy. I think it’s a little bit misleading to only take the Creative Futures component to how we support arts across British Columbia. In fact, even just in our ministry, outside of the scope of all the other ministries, we’re actually supporting it to the tune of $60 million for arts and culture.

We include $24 million to the B.C. Arts Council. It also includes $2.15 million from the BC150 cultural fund; $350,000 for the arts legacy fund; $2.2 million to the arts branch operations; $2 million for arts and cultural programs; $11.86 million for the Royal B.C. Museum; $2.5 million for Creative B.C.; and approximately $17.5 million in arts, culture and community gaming.

Since 2001 our government has provided arts and cultural organizations with more than half a billion dollars — more than any other government in B.C.’s history.

G. Heyman: I’ll thank the minister for her answer but also point out that my question was very focused on the specific functions that B.C. Creates was looking to Creative B.C. to perform. While the other investments are important, they’re not directed at those particular functions that are part of Creative B.C. and for which Creative B.C. could do more, in the opinion of people in the sectors.

Hon. C. Oakes: I think the member opposite may have also answered the question with the fact that it’s not in this ministry.

[1655]

S. Robinson: I appreciate staff sort of doing a switch. This colleague was coming today, so that was sort of my…. I forgot.

I’d like to get back to the minister’s service plan. I have a number of questions about it. My question is about the taxpayer accountability principles that are just noted in the service plan. I want to get, I guess, a full appreciation for how the minister understands the taxpayer accountability principles. She alluded to it earlier, but if she could describe the principles specifically, that would be helpful.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your patience with this particular question.

The specifics. Each of the Crown corporations…. We work through our ministry with them on six principles, and those principles include cost consciousness and efficiency, accountability, appropriate compensation, service, respect and integrity.

S. Robinson: I appreciate getting some of the details. So thank you very much for that, Minister.

I have some other questions that come out of the service plan. That is, it notes: “The ministry plays an important role in helping local governments prepare for economic growth and be ready to provide services and core infrastructure.” I’d like to hear how this ministry is helping local governments in this effort.

[1700]

Hon. C. Oakes: Some of the work that we do on a daily basis with our local governments is we ensure that we’re supporting them around efficiency, that they’re aligned with the Community Charter and the Local Government
[ Page 8010 ]
Act. We provide grants, such as small community grants, regional district grants, traffic-fine revenue, infrastructure planning and climate action revenue incentive types of programs over the past.

You know, the Canadian build infrastructure program of $272 million; the Build Canada fund of $176 million; the infrastructure stimulus fund of $96 million; the municipal rural infrastructure program of $73 million; traffic-fine revenue and regional districts — close to $1.2 billion it’s been since 2001; B.C. community water improvement programs; Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion; Spirit Squares; community recreation programs.

We constantly evolve the types of funding programs that we provide to local governments to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of the communities. Like I mentioned earlier, this round of Build Canada is really, really focused on the pipes in the ground, the water, the wastewater, ensuring that that critical infrastructure is in place to support communities across British Columbia.

S. Robinson: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. It sounds like there are just really a lot of funding opportunities for local governments, and I’d like to be able to come back to that later.

I want to go back to the taxpayer accountability principles. It just sort of dawned on me, as I was waiting while the minister consulted, that that’s where additional questions seem to evolve.

This list of six principles, the taxpayer accountability principles, that the minister uses for Crown corporations. Is this something that the minister is expecting to bring forward to her UBCM conversations when taking a look at local governments and the compensation review that her government’s been looking at for local governments?

[1705]

Hon. C. Oakes: The provincial government is pursuing opportunities to work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to address the principles of appropriate compensation in local government, in context with the broader public sector promotion of best practices, and help local governments to deliver effective, efficient services for citizens.

When you look at the six identified B.C. taxpayer accountability principles of cost efficiency, accountability, appropriate compensation, service, respect and integrity, these are all principles that I think certainly support us on moving the theory that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia.

We’re open to working with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and local governments across British Columbia to see how we can efficiently move this forward.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate hearing the context in which the minister will be operating. I want to know how she reconciles, then, objective 1.1 of her service plan that says, “Communities and regions are effectively governed,” and then the objective is “a sound governance system that balance local government autonomy and provincial responsibility.”

Given that I come from local government, and I know the minister does as well, I actually believe that most of our local governments — in fact, probably all of our local governments — already work with these principles.

Hon. C. Oakes: I come from local government. You know, one of the experiences that I’ve had, and when we’ve met with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities…. Last year I think I had 73 meetings with communities, mostly the smaller communities that come and talk to us because that’s their opportunity to really talk about challenges that they’re having with local governments.

We heard time and time again that some of the struggles local governments often have in smaller communities are around resources. You may have four staff. I remember when I went up to Port Edward. They were talking about the looming opportunities with LNG, and they have such a small staff.

How do we ensure that we’re supporting local governments with shared information and shared services so that they can, perhaps, lean on another local government to come in to help support them, whether it’s building permits or planning or things like that?

So we’re having this discussion with local governments. It’s about how we have benchmark information. Whether it’s compensation, whether you’re hiring a new CAO, whether you’re hiring a new building or planner, what is the going compensation currently for that particular position in a community of set size?

Currently in British Columbia…. I know from my experience, coming from a rural community…. Maybe it was different from an urban setting, but it was often difficult to get that kind of information to gauge what would be an appropriate rate. Often you would enter into contracts that you would later find out perhaps do not meet, if we’re looking at a one-taxpayer principle, what would be in line with that.

Really, this is an effort to support communities across British Columbia, support local governments, on understanding what the benchmark amount could be from a community from Pouce Coupe to, say, a community such as Tumbler Ridge.

S. Robinson: While the minister sort of suggests that this is about helping local governments consult with each other, that’s not what I’m hearing from local governments. I’m hearing that there is some concern about loss of autonomy, that there might be some expectation of what their compensation ought to be rather than what they negotiate based on their individual needs and their autonomy.
[ Page 8011 ]

Can the minister assure local governments that this isn’t about having some sort of criteria that there is an expectation of what their compensation packages will look like but just an opportunity for them to be able to consult with each other so that they can have an easier time of making decisions at their own local level?

Hon. C. Oakes: I certainly respect and understand where some of the comments may be from local governments. Again, whether you look at the Community Charter or the Local Government Act, there is absolute respect for that within that. We are looking at a collaborative approach, working with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to support….

[1710]

All of us carry that shared purpose of the ability to gather good, informed information that we can later support — providing that out to local governments across British Columbia. So it’s a collaborative approach that we’re looking at, working with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to support communities across British Columbia.

S. Robinson: Was the Ernst and Young report that came out right before the UBCM a collaborative report as well?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this is an opportunity for us to have good collaborative dialogue. As the province was moving forward with the B.C. taxpayer accountability principles, there were a number of items that were identified in the E and Y report, not just with local governments but a variety to gain information and for us to do a little bit of research around taxpayer accountability principles across British Columbia.

It certainly has opened the dialogue with local government so that we can move forward in a collaborative approach to start looking at benchmarked information that can be shared throughout all communities in British Columbia.

S. Robinson: I take it from the minister’s response that it wasn’t collaborative. Opening up dialogue by hitting people in the head with a hammer is hardly what I would call creating a venue for having some meaningful dialogue about what steps to take and how to work together.

So it wasn’t collaborative. It was, in fact, just undertaken by her government alone without any conversation with the UBCM or with any other local government representatives and dropped at their feet right before the UBCM, hoping, I imagine, that there would be some public discourse about it. In anticipation of the local government elections, it’s hardly how you create a culture of collaboration and support.

I’ll move on from there and ask a question coming back to the service plan. Objective 1.2 says: “Local governments are able to meet the service needs of their residents.” I want to know, from the minister’s perspective: who determines service needs, and what happens if communities can’t meet their service needs?

[1715]

Hon. C. Oakes: As we canvassed earlier, local governments are under the Community Charter in the Local Government Act and are responsible for setting forward what their needs are in their community through strategic planning processes, through their budget processes each year.

The province recognizes the local governments’ efforts on moving through these priorities as put through legislation. There are a number of tools that the province has in place to help support those local governments. Like we said earlier, since 2001 we’ve put in over $3 billion to support local governments, including infrastructure funding, governance grants, infrastructure planning grants.

For example, when we were looking at the northwest, specifically around the northwest readiness project, it was, really, identified that a lot of the communities had not yet had their asset management plans updated. When they were looking at prioritizing long-term infrastructure needs for their communities, many of them didn’t have those asset management plans in place, so we stepped up as the province and have invested $1 million to help support those communities.

Since then, we’ve invested significant more money to allow communities across British Columbia to have opportunities to look at asset management plans, infrastructure and governance plans, as well, to help support them meet their needs that are required in their communities.

S. Robinson: Moving along to objective 1.3, where local governments support a positive environment for business and economic development. One of the strategies I have some questions on. It says: “Work with partners to ensure property tax on industrial and business properties promotes competitiveness and investment while maintaining local government capacity.”

I wanted to know if the minister can tell us…. First of all, how is the ministry accomplishing this?

I’m going to roll a number of questions in here so that we can be efficient.

Who are the partners? It says: “Work with partners to ensure property tax on industrial and business properties,” so I want to know how the minister and the ministry identified partners. And what are the performance measures for this specific strategy?

[1720]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your patience, to the member opposite.

There were two reports that were formed. The first one was produced, the Major Industrial Properties Steering
[ Page 8012 ]
Committee: Final Report from May of 2012. The project was guided by a charter that set out a number of principles to guide the discussion and evaluation of options. The representatives of the province, the UBCM, local governments and industry began to work together through this steering committee.

I’d be happy to provide a copy of the report to the member opposite as opposed to me going…. There is benchmark material in there. Really, it was about partnerships, best practices around revitalization, and working creatively with local government and regional solutions.

The other report that was created was the Report of the Expert Panel on B.C. Business Tax Competitiveness, and that report was released on August 31, 2012. I would also be happy to provide the member opposite with a copy of that report as well.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the generosity of sharing reports. I’ll be able to pull those up, I’m sure.

When the Minister of Natural Gas says that there is going to be a cap on some sort of industrial property tax, is that in line with the reports that the minister has referred to? Is that with partners? Is that just a decision made by a minister from a different ministry, or was there some sort of consultation?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The principles were identified around competitiveness and ensuring that we’re working collaboratively with a variety of partners to ensure local governments and businesses are supported.

I think the best example of how that has played out is Port Edward. There is an opportunity when you have a local government — I talked a little bit about them earlier — in a really small community faced with this tremendous opportunity ahead of them around a partnership with a significant stakeholder coming into their community.

I think that, through the support of our ministry and working closely with both the business sector and the local government to ensure that we came to a mutual agreement, it’s the best example of the success of working collaboratively and ensuring that we don’t have to look at what you’ve mentioned, going forward and capping, We came out together with a solution that was collaborative and agreed to by all parties.

S. Robinson: If I understand the minister, the decision by one of her colleagues to put a cap on industrial taxation has nothing to do with her ministry, has nothing to do with these reports. That was just another minister making a decision, putting it out there. I don’t know what that was about, but perhaps the minister can attempt at answering how it is that another minister suggested that a cap of industrial taxation for some of these challenged communities would be the most appropriate way to go.

Hon. C. Oakes: In fact, that’s absolutely incorrect. What has happened is we worked closely with the local government and the business partner to ensure that we came forward with a negotiated rate that is agreed to by both parties.

I was up in Port Edward just before Christmastime, and I can tell you that it was a big milestone for the community, which has worked tremendously hard for many, many years to see the significant economic growth that they are going to benefit from. There were tears. There was a lot of emotion in that room and a lot of pride with the fact that the local government was able to work closely with a large stakeholder to ensure future economic success for their community and for their citizens.

[1725]

S. Robinson: While I appreciate the minister’s comments in terms of the impact this has in Port Edward, there is some conversation that I’m hearing that some people are concerned that because they’re a small community, advocating in a big business world is quite challenging for them. There are some that have concerns about whether or not they actually negotiated a fair deal for their residents. I will leave that to their residents to determine, because in terms of elections, if people weren’t happy with that deal, they get to change their council and mayor.

I’d like to move on and ask about objective 2.3, about community sustainability. One of the strategies that is in this plan is to encourage local governments to facilitate the development of more affordable market housing options near transit. Again, I’m going to roll in a number of questions, just to be efficient.

In my community, in Coquitlam, there are a number of transit stations that are going to be coming on line, which is very exciting. There is certainly some discussion around that council table about developing affordable market housing around those stations. Certainly, a number of the councillors around that table would say that those are market forces, that it’s not their responsibility. It’s certainly not their responsibility as local government.

There is not a whole lot of appetite to actually do anything and just allow market forces to do what they do, which is to drive up these costs substantially — that’s what we’re anticipating — losing a whole host of affordable rental accommodations and affordable homes for purchase. Those are older buildings, and we know we’re going to lose them. The market will demand that they get sold, because they have more value.

I’d like to hear from the minister about what would be available from this ministry to help this community that is going to be going under significant change around the Evergreen line — that is committed transit — to help them as a community to ensure that they have what the mandate is, which is to develop more affordable market housing options.
[ Page 8013 ]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: First, I would perhaps turn the attention to the ministry of housing, which, of course, invests significant funds in affordable housing.

[1730]

Some of the things that our ministry does to support local governments, specifically in the areas that the member opposite recognized…. This past year we created the guide to the community amenities, which supports local governments in ways that they can work with properties on looking at more affordable housing.

Of course, we also support the regional growth strategy — if there is any local government out there that requires some support on their regional growth strategy which would align with how you can start making smart-growth options close to transit. Coquitlam has been identified, actually, as a community that’s doing an outstanding job with aligning those principles.

We also have an assessment team that will help work with local governments to look at different property taxation for social housing. We do a number of things to support local governments on achieving that greater smart-growth strategy that’s important to increasing the number of affordable housing around transit stations.

I will also mention that last year we brought in legislation and streamlined the land use contracts. One of the things that we’d identified…. I think there were over 70 outdated land use contracts, which really made OCPs difficult in areas where we had regional growth strategies in place. These outdated land use contracts, overlaid on top of the OCP, were really creating a barrier for communities in doing proper smart-growth strategies in those areas. That legislation that was brought in last year helped streamline that to support local governments on making those updates to their OCPs.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the change with the land use contracts. I was part of a council that had to deal with getting one taken out of the land use contract. It was quite the undertaking, and I certainly applauded the elimination of that and moving over, because they were certainly problematic at the local level.

I appreciate that there’s recognition of Coquitlam’s efforts. But at the end of the day, I think the minister would recognize that unless there’s a strong commitment by any council to make sure that there is affordable market housing…. And I’m not talking about social housing; I’m talking about market housing where there are reasonable rents for people who make minimum wage or just above, barely above minimum wage, to have a place where they can afford to live.

We are going to be losing all of that housing unless there is a concerted effort by that particular local government to act very boldly in finding ways to make sure that there’s some protection of that housing stock. We will lose all those, probably several hundred units of housing, to condo development, where you’re going to need $300,000 to $400,000 to just get into the market. Forget renting.

I would certainly point out to the minister that you can create all the documents that you want and you can demonstrate how local governments can use different tools, perhaps like amenity contributions — and certainly that community has — but unless there are some more tools, that’s just not going to happen. It’s certainly not going to happen in that community, and that’s going to be a loss of housing.

I do want to reflect on this notion of building this kind of housing near transit. From a principled perspective, I think it makes sense to build it near transit. I will say that I’m very proud that my son just bought his first home and bought it near transit so that he could give up his car — which he may not do. Once the Evergreen line comes, perhaps he will, so he can put that money into his mortgage.

I appreciate the principles around it, but the challenges are that transit is not well funded. We have a plebiscite coming in the Lower Mainland.

Regardless, development is happening. It’s happening up in Burke Mountain in the Coquitlam area. That community was built as a transit-oriented community. That was the plan. It was a plan from ten years ago. The way it’s developed is that there’s not a lot of place for parking because it’s supposed to be a transit-oriented community, and transit will never come in the way that, I think, the vision was.

I’d like to hear from the minister about she reconciles that this is, on the one hand, the vision, but the reality is that we don’t have a properly funded transit system. The plebiscite — we don’t know exactly how it’s going to play out. But if it’s no, how does that impact on this strategy?

[1735]

Hon. C. Oakes: Maybe just a forward statement. Previously the member opposite talked about: perhaps when we look at the Community Charter and local governments, respecting autonomy of local governments. It’s always that balance, right? You know, we can’t go in and mandate to a local government how they would put in affordable or social housing. That’s the autonomy of local governments. You can’t have it both ways.

I will say, around transit, how our ministry and our government is supporting local governments. I would remind the member opposite that of the $2.76 billion in gas tax that is received, over half of that goes to the Lower Mainland for transit. That’s a significant investment that we do make in the communities in the Lower Mainland to ensure that the long-term funding supports the achievement identified around transit and, then, helping the regional growth strategies.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the acknowledgment that
[ Page 8014 ]
local governments do have the autonomy. They do, so I would caution about whether or not provincial government can actually use the existing tools to encourage local governments to facilitate development of affordable market housing. Perhaps there needs to be other tools that would entice local governments and encourage them to do that. It’s just not sufficient, I guess, is what I’m saying.

At the end of the day, local governments don’t have any other way to generate revenue, which is what Strong Fiscal Futures is about, and I will certainly have questions about that. All they have is their property taxes to generate revenue. Perhaps if there were other ways they could do it, there might be more willingness to look at other kinds of affordable housing.

Perhaps it’s the responsibility of some other level of government to take a look at how to do that. There’s certainly some room for discussion there.

In terms of transit, I recognize that provincial government transfers over to fund transit, but we all recognize that that’s just not sufficient. That’s what this plebiscite is about. It’s recognizing that the demand for increased transit is beyond what’s currently supported and that more investment in that needs to happen.

It goes to performance measure 4, which is on page 11. I guess it’s still about community sustainability. That encourages local governments to take action to reduce their carbon footprint. There’s the measurement of 96 percent for 2015-16 that are taking action to reduce their carbon footprint. In the discussion notes it talks about local governments using planning tools, making more sustainable land use decisions to create complete compact communities and regions with more diverse housing and transportation choices.

Given those challenges, I would love to hear from the minister about how she reconciles the fact that that’s just not enough investment in transit. We just don’t have enough. What goes along with that are housing choices. We’re not getting the same kinds of housing choices, certainly around affordability. How would the minister address that, if she could?

[1740]

Hon. C. Oakes: I’d like to thank my staff for all the great, sound advice that they always provide.

One of the things that we look at in our ministry…. Some of the questions from the member opposite are really within the framework of another ministry, but I’ll maybe talk about some of the accountability and enabling frameworks that our ministry does to, again, support local governments with ensuring success.

We talked about the gas tax to support local governments. We talked about the community amenity guides. We talked about some of the funding that we provide — the climate action revenue incentive program, the CARIP program, that provides a considerable amount of funds to local governments to ensure that they’re finding ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in their communities.

Perhaps if the member would talk more about what’s within our ministry mandate, I’d be able to articulate a little bit more.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that these decisions are left to other ministries, but I’d like to hear about how the minister actually advocates on behalf of local governments, given that her ministry is responsible for local governments. How does she advocate, given that…? We don’t live in silos. Local governments certainly don’t exist in silos. They’re the ones, the first order of government, that actually have to deal with all these different pieces coming from decisions among all these different ministries.

When you have in a service plan some comments that say, “We are going to support you around these sorts of things,” but that’s a different ministry, I’m challenged with that. I’d actually like to hear how this minister works together with the other ministries to be able to deliver to local governments.

[1745]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, to reiterate the supports that we do provide local governments…. We work with them, as we have the regional growth strategy. We have an interagency committee that ensures that we’re supporting local government on making decisions.

Again, we respect their autonomy. We are there to support them on…. Whether it’s planning…. The planning branch offers support. There are linkages with the climate action smart planning through the Fraser Basin Council that we participate with; the gas tax, which we work closely with local governments on; the Green Communities that we work with UBCM on; and, of course, there’s the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

I think last year the Ministry of Transportation held over 80 independent meetings with communities. We had 73 different meetings with communities from across British Columbia. I could be cheeky, but I could also read this significant binder here, which has a significant…. It’s big. It lists all of the local government investments in every single community across the province that we’ve invested in, in infrastructure, planning, governance supports to local governments.

S. Robinson: This performance measure regarding local governments taking action to reduce their carbon footprint and hitting these targets…. I don’t know about the minister, but I actually take performance measures quite seriously and make sure that I’m doing everything I can to hit the targets.

The performance measure listed here says: “percentage of local governments taking action to reduce their carbon footprint.” I would assume that the minister recog-
[ Page 8015 ]
nizes that unless, for some communities, transit actually materializes, they may not actually hit their targets, because it’s predicated on there being these transportation options in order to make those targets.

Does that mean that we shouldn’t be taking this that seriously? You know, I would really like to hear how the minister is advocating to make sure that these communities that turn to her ministry for support get the range of support that they need — not just money from this ministry or support in how to do planning, but recognizing that there are a whole bunch of other ministries and ministers whose decisions influence local governments. I would just like to hear a little bit about how the minister works together with other ministries to help address some of these.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we work regularly with all the ministries we just identified at Union of British Columbia Municipalities. We’re all set up there. We meet with each of the communities, and then we have our collective information that we share within our ministries.

I think this is where, perhaps, we differ from the member opposite. Ultimately, we respect the autonomy of local governments. We ensure that we have plans and programs in place. But we also respect the accountability principles of “only one taxpayer,” and at the end of the day, when it comes to transit, we have a referendum to ask citizens what they feel about the future of their communities.

S. Robinson: I’m really grateful to hear that the minister takes the autonomy of local governments very seriously and recognizes that they get to decide what is in the best needs of their communities. I expect that she’ll recognize that when it comes to the various transit and other investments that the government makes, that actually limits or enhances the kinds of things that she and her ministry have identified to support local governments. The limitations are there, and I assume that the minister recognizes that those limitations are there.

I have a number of other questions that have to do with some infrastructure investment. Budget 2015 outlines continued investment in a number of transportation investments like the Evergreen line, Highway 97–Cariboo connector–Mountain Highway interchange. There was nothing in the budget that spoke to the Building Canada fund in the budget itself.

[1750]

Can the minister just tell us a little bit about the Build Canada fund and how her ministry has been working with those funds?

Hon. C. Oakes: As we canvassed at the last UBCM and made the announcement in October, the small-communities fund, which is the piece of the New Build Canada fund that the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development is responsible for, is $109 billion. Sorry, $109 million. I was going to say that did not sound…. My apologies. I wish it was. If it was $109 billion, think of what we could achieve. Anyway, please accept my correction. It’s $109 million.

The intake opened last fall. It closed on February 18. We’re currently going through and doing the analysis on each of them. We had 106 applications that came forward for this round of the small-communities fund for the New Build Canada program. Of course, we’re quite oversubscribed, so what we are focusing on and what we had worked with UBCM on is a focus on the pipes in the ground. That’s the water, the wastewater and the sewer requirements in communities.

S. Robinson: If I recall, the remaining $900 million, I think it is, is for large communities, over 100,000. That is going through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. Oakes: One of the things that was a little bit different in our negotiations over this past year is that when we canvassed and worked with local governments across British Columbia…. We have two funds. We have the Build Canada, and we have the gas tax. We worked diligently with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the province to negotiate with the federal government a larger percent of the gas tax. We signed a ten-year agreement of $2.76 billion. We really focused on that fund because it provided a little bit more flexibility, which we had heard local governments required.

That’s things like the core infrastructure pieces — the brownfield sites, the technology, those pieces. But they’d also asked, local governments, for things such as cultural structures and recreational facilities that they had said they needed funds for. So that’s three times as much as it was before the gas tax — the $2.76 billion, which we did sign on.

The small communities fund, through the New Build Canada portion, is the ten-year agreement that we made last year. A significant portion of that is through the Ministry of Transportation.

[1755]

That’s for critical regional and national infrastructure projects. We heard that the federal government announced in their federal budget more focus for the larger communities on transit, for example. That was something that was announced. But again, our portion of the New Build Canada is the $109 million for small-communities fund, with a recognition that we received a bulk of our funding through the gas tax, which was $2.76 billion.

S. Robinson: So if I understand correctly…. I know that there are some larger municipalities who are still a little confused about it and who are trying to reconcile that when you’re in a larger community and you are looking for funding for your project…. It would appear that
[ Page 8016 ]
there is no funding through the Build Canada fund for them. So then it is the gas tax — that is where they can make their application for whatever project it is.

Hon. C. Oakes: There are currently nine communities in British Columbia that are over the 100,000 population. Gas tax — the portion of it is population-based, so obviously the greater your population, the greater the amount of money coming into your community.

We do look at that balanced approach to funding, of looking at both the gas tax and the Build Canada. But with that said, there are still components coming out of the New Build Canada, as through the Ministry of Transportation, that are looking at national regional priorities. That is an ongoing discussion with the federal government and the Ministry of Transportation.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that explanation. Perhaps I’ll spend a little bit of time on the small-communities fund and ask a few questions about this $109 million. I believe the minister said earlier that there were 160 applications and that we’re certainly overprescribed.

I’m wondering if the minister is able to tell us about the total value of the requests and the criteria that’s been used to assess these applications.

Hon. C. Oakes: To date, of the 160 applications that came in for the small-communities fund for this particular first intake of rounds, the total estimated project costs were over $900 million, and the total federal-provincial grant request exceeds $510 million.

The category applications were focused on drinking water, wastewater, highway and major roads, disaster mitigation, solid waste management. There were a few other applications that came in.

The process was very technical on how the assessment is made for moving projects forward. There is an initial review. Is the project eligible? Is it an eligible project type? Did they complete the application correctly and a certification form that was submitted with the application? That moved it from first round to the next round. Then there is a technical review of each of the small community grant applications. So criteria had a scoring of…. Does the project meet goals and objectives of the program?

One of the things that was critically important when we looked at putting the assessment…. Where the provincial or federal government puts regulations in place — for example, say it is around wastewater — we wanted to ensure that that was given priority on the assessment from evaluation. Does the project provide benefits and support best practices? Does the project meet the category-specific outcomes? Is there rationale for the project?

[1800]

Asset management was a critical component that we had identified to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities moving forward. How do we create those best practices? But also recognizing that we want to support local governments who perhaps don’t have updated asset management. This was a way to drive them to complete those asset management pieces.

Does it address regulatory requirements? That’s those standards that we set. Of course, then we talked about budget, timeline, risks and scope of the project. When we go to the final evaluation, does it meet the financial requirements of the program? Is it sustainable? Is there stability of the applicant and project cost implication on a per-capita basis, and does the applicant demonstrate a third of their funding as being secured?

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that very descriptive and fulsome list that staff use in order to detail exactly and make some recommendations based on that. It’s very fulsome. So I appreciate learning a little bit more about how those decisions are made.

Given that some of these communities are very tiny and have a very small handful of staff, I want to understand the process a little bit better — if there is some opportunity for some of these local governments that have very limited resources to get some support in filling in these applications. These are very complicated and dense applications. I’d like to learn a little bit more and to find out how the ministry supports these stretched, very tiny, little local governments.

Hon. C. Oakes: Some of the things that we do…. And I absolutely share the comments of the member opposite. Having come from a smaller community, I’m always very cognizant of the challenge, especially when it’s a per-capita cost — for example, around the gas tax. How do you ensure that your landfill gets replaced? How do you ensure that some of these big projects move forward?

Some of the things that we do have in place to ensure that we are supporting communities are…. We have $1.5 million for asset management plans. So if a community is requiring that to be updated, we work closely with them on that. As well, we have $500,000 for infrastructure planning grants. So again, leading up to the next round of Build Canada intakes, we’re reaching out to communities and educating folks that we have these planning grants available to help support if there’s a specific project that is in place. Of course, we have great infrastructure and staff that are in place.

Maybe just something that’s off of this. I have to commend the team. I’ve seen them time and time again look to a community that brings forward a critically important project. Perhaps it’s from a smaller community, and we recognize that they need some additional support. I’ve seen them go through and work closely with the community to ensure that they’re successful. Every single member on the team I know deeply cares about the local governments and wants to ensure that they’re successful. I’m just really proud of the work that they’ve done.
[ Page 8017 ]

Can we do more? Absolutely, always. We need to be ensuring that we’re always reaching out. I would say to local governments: “If you have an application….” It’s closed now but on the next round. I tried to get that message off. “If you have a question around, perhaps, one of your applications that has gone in or you’re wondering if it’s best practices or what have you, our staff would be happy to sit down and talk through the application to ensure that it’s successful.

S. Robinson: To the minister, I want to thank her for that.

That was my next question. What sort of supports are there when…? Because some people will not be successful given the volume. Sometimes I suspect some of these small communities might not be successful because they didn’t understand a piece that needed to be included, or they struggled to get the information they needed, or it wasn’t ready because they needed $20,000 somewhere else in order to answer one of the questions in order to do a proper analysis of something.

[1805]

These small communities often don’t have that capacity or don’t even recognize where they’re falling short. So I’m pleased to hear that staff work closely and that they’re prepared to provide some feedback about unsuccessful grants.

The minister sort of pre-empted my next question, as well, around the next intake and so noted that — in the service plan there’s some fine print on page 10 — 50 percent of the small communities fund will be allocated in February of 2015, with the remaining funds at future intakes. Can the minister please let us know how many future intakes are being considered and when those deadlines might be?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thanks to staff. When I went through the technical review of the analysis of how the small community grants are being determined, the other critical….

Once all of the assessment, which I read out, is done, there is a joint panel. It includes two federal representatives, two provincial representatives, and UBCM is an observer. That’s how that final analysis is done of the grants that come forward.

The other thing that they’ll be looking at is the scope of the projects coming forward, and that is the group that also determines when the next round of funding will be open. Again, I don’t sit on the joint committee. It’s staff that sit on that. But we anticipate possibly in 18 months would be the next round that would open up. Again, it would be up to the joint committee to determine that.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for sharing that information about the joint review panel. Can she tell me a little bit more about who sits on that panel? I’m particularly interested in sort of what they represent, who they are. That would be very helpful.

Hon. C. Oakes: The two federal representatives are the assistant deputy minister of Infrastructure Canada and the executive director for the region for Infrastructure Canada. For the province, it’s Jay Schlosar, the ADM for local government, as well as the assistant deputy minister for MOTI. That shows how Transportation and our ministry are working collaboratively. For UBCM, it is the president of UBCM and the executive director.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that description. That’s most helpful.

[1810]

I notice also on page 10 of the service plan, as it relates to some of the small communities fund, it notes that once the new Building Canada fund announcement was made in the fall of 2014, there may be an update to performance measures to reflect the new projects approved. These are performance measures of the percentage of British Columbians served by drinking water systems that meet emerging treatment standards for the protection of drinking water quality.

Since there hasn’t been an announcement of who has been successful, I’m assuming that’s still going to be undertaken, and perhaps there’ll be an update to this in terms of new targets. Will that be made available?

Hon. C. Oakes: We have been meeting with the Minister of Health — the Minister of Transportation and myself, as well as our appropriate staff — on supporting communities on meeting their minimum drinking water standards. Currently we’re looking at best performance measurement around government infrastructure for the small…. So there are some measurements to that.

S. Robinson: If I can just slightly change track on that. Under this performance measure it talks about…. The 2014-15 forecast for percentage of British Columbians served by drinking water systems that currently meet treatment standards is just shy of 60 percent. Then the target, moving forward, is “to maintain or improve.” Is it to maintain, or is it to improve?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question.

We absolutely remain committed to ensuring the investments in partnership with local government in small communities and drinking water…. We know that it’s dynamic across the province, and we’re looking at a ten-year…. Over the window of ten years a lot of things can happen in communities. We were just discussing the slide in Sicamous and how that changed. That was a real dynamic.

A lot of times there are significant changes that happen in local governments. I think we need to be nimble, and we need to be responsive and reflective of that. So it’s a little difficult.

[1815]

It is our intention to improve that percentage, recog-
[ Page 8018 ]
nizing it is a little bit dynamic, and we’re taking…. It’s not a short-termism approach that we’re looking at. It’s looking at investments over the next ten years.

S. Robinson: Thank you for the response. I would actually suggest that it should be improved, that maintaining just…. You know, at times it might not happen, but that’s because things happen in communities that you can’t predict. I would encourage the minister to suggest that it just be improved, not either-or.

I have a question about…. Because we’re talking about infrastructure, and given the volume of applications that the minister and her staff have received for this grant, does the minister know what the current infrastructure funding gap is for British Columbia?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, and we have two ministries we’re reporting on today.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and report progress in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

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

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