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, September 28, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 9

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

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: I am pleased to stand and introduce a couple of visitors from the Kelowna area — specifically, I believe, in the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations’ riding. Mike McLoughlin, co-owner and operator of Medi-Kel Family Practice and Walk-In Clinic is here, and also Dr. Mark Fromberg, principal of Mission Medical. They are here today to represent Walk-In Clinics of British Columbia. Would the House please make them feel welcome over there.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the House we are joined by very dear friends of mine, Brad and Sharon Pollock. They also happen to be constituents of mine. They are joined here by Mike and Arlene Yee, Darryl and Jackie Urquhart, and Trevor and Kathy Smith. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Bernier: Today we made history in the Legislature as we worked with our partners to roll out opportunities and supports for teachers here in British Columbia with our new curriculum. It’s a pleasure for me to welcome and acknowledge some of our special guests that we have here with us in the building today.

We have Sherry Elwood, the president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association, and Starleigh Grass, the senior policy analyst for the First Nations Education Authority. We have Gordon Li and Kevin Reimer of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association.

[1335]

We also have Mr. Jim Iker, the president of the BCTF, Nicole Makohoniuk, the president of the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, Teresa Rezansoff, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Peter Froese, the executive director of the Federation of Independent School Associations, and Joan Axford, who is the executive director of the B.C. Association of School Business Officials.

We had an amazing announcement today, and it could not have happened if it wasn’t for our amazing partners in education. I want everybody in the House to please make them welcome.

J. Darcy: I think it was last Tuesday that many of us, when we turned on our radio for the news in the morning, heard some good news for a change. This is about a soon-to-be resident of British Columbia. Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy, after a two-year legal ordeal and after 411 days in an infamous prison in Cairo, was finally pardoned and told that he would be able to return to Canada, return to British Columbia.

He and his fiancée want nothing more than to make a new life here in British Columbia, where he will be a writer-in-residence at the University of British Columbia, beginning at the end of October, I believe. I look forward to the day when we can welcome him — both sides of the House — to this Legislature and support him for standing up for press freedom, something that we all cherish so deeply.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my privilege today to introduce two special constituents of mine and two special people in my life. I have my brother here, Toby Oakes, and my beautiful, talented niece Delany. We would like to do a shout-out to our other niece at home, who is studying her second-year social work. She couldn’t come for this trip because she is busy studying. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a couple of guests here today that I’d like the House to join. Both Amy Jones and Aline Fricot are standing right up there. They’re with the Save your Skin Foundation. They will be at the event that we’re holding later on this evening. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Morris: My wife hasn’t been here. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to introduce her to the House. My beautiful wife of 38 summers is sitting in the House today, accompanied by two of our neighbours here in Victoria, Pauline and Celeste. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two good friends of mine, Phil Venoit and Laird Cronk. Phil is the president and chairman of the IBEW and the Building Trades Council here on Vancouver Island — IBEW Local 230. Go 230. Laird is here as the international representative for the IBEW in Canada, which includes B.C., the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

We all want the lights to stay on. We all know that during the horrific storm this summer, we had IBEW linemen out there keeping the lights on and keeping power going. Would you please thank their representatives here today and linemen right across the province for the work they did on behalf of all British Columbians.

V. Huntington: Even though he actually didn’t want to be introduced, I’d like to introduce Andrew Patrick, my communication and research officer — his first time in QP — and Stephen Harrison, who is my senior research officer in my office. Please make them welcome.
[ Page 9178 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. P. Fassbender presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that Bill 36, entitled the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015, be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m pleased to present the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015, today.

[1340]

The legislation reflects our learnings from the first two years of operations of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. It amends the Auditor General for Local Government Act by clarifying and enhancing the governance and accountability provisions of the act.

These amendments will strengthen the legislative authorities of the minister, the audit council and the Auditor General for Local Government and support them in the fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities.

Specifically, the amendments will strengthen the role of the minister and the minister’s relationship with the AGLG by doing the following: enabling the minister to initiate a review of the Office of the AGLG at any time; secondly, enabling the minister to recommend suspension or removal of the AGLG without waiting for an audit council recommendation; and ensuring that the minister has a role in the budget estimates for the process of the AGLG.

The role of the audit council will be strengthened also by providing it with the authority to request from the AGLG information necessary to carry out its responsibilities and prepare a report to the minister at any time on the AGLG’s performance and also broadening and clarifying the audit council’s authority to review and monitor the AGLG’s performance, including the ability to conduct an independent review of the auditor general’s performance.

Finally, the AGLG’s terms and conditions of employment will be clarified by appointing the AGLG under the Public Service Act, which allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set the terms and conditions of employment.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 9179 ]

Bill 36, Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 33 — MOTION PICTURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from her honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce the Motion Picture Amendment Act. These amendments were previously introduced in 2012. However, at that time, we were unable to complete third reading of the bill. As these amendments remain important to this government, we are bringing them back for consideration, and only minor edits have been made to the 2012 bill.

Amendments to the Motion Picture Act will modernize the legislation and give Consumer Protection B.C. the tools it needs to better protect the interests of children and families and to adapt to modern technology. If passed, the act will adopt a progressive compliance and enforcement model, similar to what has been proven to be effective in other sectors that Consumer Protection B.C. regulates.

Sanctions would now range from a warning letter to monetary penalties that don’t involve the courts to licence suspension or termination, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Previously, the only enforcement options available under the act were licence suspension or cancellation, seizure or the levy of a fine that involved the court system.

The act is also being updated to accurately reflect the law around obscenity and censorship and to align with the Criminal Code. A number of the amendments update and streamline outdated language or are required to capture changes in the way movies are distributed to theatres — for example, by satellite and digital distribution. Definitions under the act for terms such as “film” and “motion picture” have been clarified to eliminate confusion.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SEA TO SKY SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROGRAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS

J. Sturdy: Today I rise to speak about the amazing work being done in the Sea to Sky school district and how innovation and partnerships are helping the region respond to the changing needs of our students.

[1345]

Earlier this month I was pleased to join the Minister of Education on his first official tour, which happened to be the Sea to Sky school district. We observed the launch of two new programs and saw firsthand how the district is helping students find new pathways to education.

At Myrtle Philip elementary, we saw primary grade students work in groups to solve problems, experience team dynamics and establish their collaborative skills. At Pemberton Secondary, we toured the market garden on the first day of harvest, saw the students working hard in the pouring rain to gather carrots and potatoes and beets and some of literally the biggest pumpkins I have ever seen grown in the Pemberton Valley. These students operate a business through the garden, selling their produce to local restaurants, which supports the program and enhances funding available to keep the garden tended during the summer months.

Finally, at Stawamus Elementary, we saw how collaboration and a shared vision with the Squamish First Nation have turned the school into a one-of-a-kind learning environment. The school’s two programs, Cultural Journeys and Learning Expeditions, are helping the school district make real progress towards personalized learning.

The Cultural Journeys program emphasizes cross-cultural collaboration and First Nations learning and includes an outdoor education component as well as a focus on aboriginal land, language and culture. This program puts an emphasis on the success of the group, the nature of the community and innovative classroom dynamics.

The work we saw is supporting the changes to the provincial curriculum. It’s helping communities come together to promote understanding and respect and build more personal, more inclusive learning environments. This is great news for our students, and I want to congratulate everyone in school district 48 for their great work.

RIDE TO CONQUER CANCER

S. Robinson: Imagine getting on a bicycle to ride from Cloverdale to Seattle. Well, 2,087 mostly British Columbians did just that again this year. The seventh annual Ride to Conquer Cancer, to benefit the B.C. Cancer Foundation, raised $8.4 million this year.

Now, I have ridden in six of those seven rides, and I have to tell the members of this House that this was the most inspiring and memorable ride ever. What started out as a very wet Saturday in August and with very wet streets and very wet riders turned into an epic windstorm of an epic ride in our journey to conquer cancer.

You will recall the August windstorm that brought down trees and power lines in the Lower Mainland. Well, try riding your bicycle in that. The winds game in gusts, and cyclists were doing their best just to stay upright. On those lovely downhills, we were pedalling with all of our energy just to go downhill.

Kudos to the B.C. Cancer Foundation and organizers for activating their contingency plan and to end day 1 at 74 kilometres into the 120 kilometres for the day, to find buses and trucks to transport riders and their bikes the remaining distance to the camp. Organizers had to restructure sleeping arrangements for thousands of people, as the tent city that had been set up got blown all over the place. And they had to re-route for day 2 as well.

What impressed me most about this epic ride was that 2,000 riders and 1,000 volunteers pulled together. Everyone recognized that riding in this windstorm was nothing compared to a cancer diagnosis. Spirits were not dampened or blown away. Riders and volunteers knew that what they were doing was making a difference for British Columbians.

We knew that the seven rides over seven years have raised $70 million to fund leading-edge research and that with every push on our pedals, all of our lives would be richer for it. Everyone rose to the occasion on that epic windy day — the riders, the volunteers, the organizers and the B.C. Cancer Foundation.

On behalf of the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville, I say thank you to all of those working together to make a difference to conquer cancer.

SAVE YOUR SKIN FOUNDATION
AND MELANOMA PREVENTION

J. Thornthwaite: It’s with great pleasure that I rise today to speak about an organization that is working hard to raise awareness of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers while providing support to patients, survivors and their families.

In 2003, North Vancouver resident Kathy Barnard found two lumps on her arm and went to the doctor to get them checked out. One lump was benign. The other turned out to be a stage 4 malignant melanoma. Two years later she was told that the cancer had spread to her liver, kidney, adrenal glands and her lungs. Her doctor said she had between six and nine months to live.

Over the next year, Kathy underwent a series of exhausting treatments, including chemotherapy, injections and trial-drug therapy. Though she still battles melanoma, she has outlived her doctor’s prognosis by more than a decade.

[1350]

In 2006, inspired by her own experience, Kathy and her family founded the Save Your Skin Foundation to provide comfort to those who are struggling with the disease. The foundation offers information and support to patients and their families, arranges transport to medical appointments and helps melanoma sufferers access clinical trails and connect with doctors.

The foundation also uses events, like the recent Walk to Remember, in Kelowna, to raise awareness of the importance of early detection and prevention. Each year nearly 6,500 Canadians are diagnosed with melanoma, and more than 1,000 will die from it. The disease remains the second most common cancer among Canadians age 15 to 34, and it is increasing fastest among women under the age of 29.

Though melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, it is also one of the most preventable. Today we want to encourage all British Columbians to follow a few simple steps to protect themselves from UV radiation: refrain from indoor tanning, wear sunglasses and protective clothing, always use sunscreen, and follow Kathy’s advice: check your skin and report any changes to your doctor.

PORT ALBERNI ASSOCIATION
FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

S. Fraser: September has been proclaimed Disability Employment Month. The Port Alberni Association for Community Living took the opportunity to celebrate with all of those who have supported their community employment program.

I dearly wanted to attend, but last week was the UBCM, and many of us were away. I had to send my regrets, but I committed to doing the next best thing, which was rising today in this place, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and publicly speaking about the event and the importance of hiring individuals with unique abilities.

At Wednesday’s event, the association was showcasing the community’s employment program and its resounding success over the past few years. More importantly, Port Alberni’s Association for Community Living was expressing its sincere gratitude to Port Alberni employers who supported their program and who share their philosophy that our communities are at their best when they include all of their members.

Those employers have learned from experience that they and their businesses can benefit from well-matched job placement through the community employment program. Hiring an individual with unique abilities makes good business sense.

Business owners were more than pleased with the support offered through the program, and the new employees quickly became valued employees. One employer stated: “If anyone has ever doubted the work ethic of people with disabilities, I can now attest to the fact that they are wrong. I have never had such a hard-working, loyal employee. We are happy to call her a co-worker, happy to call her a friend.” A fitting quote to close on.

Thank you to the Port Alberni Association for Community Living and all those employers involved for spreading the word that we are all better off, as a society, being inclusive. That makes us all winners.

CHILLIWACK VEDDER RIVER
CLEANUP SOCIETY

L. Throness: Yesterday I took part in an event sponsored by the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society in the Chilliwack River Valley. Thousands of visitors come from all over the Lower Mainland to enjoy the beauty of our valley, but some of them leave their garbage behind. Several times per year the cleanup society rallies hundreds of local volunteers to help clean up the mess of a few irresponsible people.

They make it a festive event with booths and prizes and a lunch for all the volunteers. As I drove up Bench Road enjoying the magnificent views that the valley offers, I remarked to myself how pristine everything looked. But when I arrived at the cleanup site, I found thousands of shotgun and other shells lying around, along with a lot of other junk. Several of us spent hours filling a pickup truck full of garbage bags just from that one spot.

There are dozens of similar problem areas in the Chilliwack River Valley. In fact, staff tell me that the problem is everywhere in B.C. We live in a huge province, 93 percent of which is Crown land. It’s very difficult to police such a large area, ever more accessible to growing numbers of off-road vehicles using forest service roads. That’s why we depend on organizations like the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society to facilitate the people of B.C. exercising more control over their own land.

Special thanks must go to Chris Gadsden, who has led the society for many years. The society’s directors also do a great job, and we so appreciate each one of the 300 volunteers who came out on Sunday to be part of the solution.

I will continue to represent my constituents by advocating for more enforcement and more education. Working together, we will succeed in keeping the Chilliwack River Valley as one of the most beautiful spots in the most beautiful province on earth.

[1355]

COLIN HILL

B. Ralston: Colin Hill, a 42-year-old Surrey real estate agent, his wife, Becky Zhou, and their two children went to bed on the evening of July 12, 2015, with their bags packed and the alarm set to wake up early to head off on a brief family vacation to Las Vegas.

That night an intruder tried to break into their West Cloverdale home. According to published reports, Colin
[ Page 9181 ]
Hill confronted the intruder and struggled with him at the front door to keep him out of the House. He shouted to his wife and the two children to run and hide because the intruder had a gun. Colin Hill was shot and died at the scene.

Colin Hill grew up in Surrey and attended Johnston Heights and Queen Elizabeth secondary schools. After time as a manager at Save-on-Foods, he became a successful real estate agent in Surrey, winning many awards. At his funeral service in July, some of his many friends told the overflow crowd of his capacity for enduring friendship. His neighbours spoke of the fact that his home was the place in the neighbourhood where everyone felt comfortable to drop by and chat and to visit.

He loved sports and was a competitive player of many. He loved his family — his wife, Becky Zhou, herself a real estate agent, his son Matthew and their daughter Leah. His wife, Becky Zhou, said of her husband: “….a very protective father, the very best husband a person could ever ask for.” Matthew, aged 17, spoke of his father in a written statement, saying: “My father has raised and shaped me into the person I am today. Without him, I would never have become the guy I am today, and I will do everything to try and become as amazing of a man as my father was.”

In addition to his wife and children, Colin leaves his mother Joyce, his stepfather, Gordon, his mother-in-law, Xiao Qun Zhao, his father-in-law, Shu Zhen Zhao, his sister, Caroline McParland, and many other relatives.

His family, his friends and everyone in Surrey mourn the tragic death of such a wonderful person. A suspect with a reportedly lengthy criminal record is charged with the second-degree murder of Colin Hill. The circumstances of his death raise profound questions that we in Surrey will continue to deal with in the future.

Oral Questions

YOUTH IN CARE DEATH CASE
AND CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

J. Horgan: Last week we learned that Alex Gervais, a youth in government care, died alone in a hotel in Abbotsford. We hear from his friends that he had been there for at least two months. He was afraid, fearful for his future, uncertain and depressed. We know that he was concerned that he was going to be aging out of the ministry’s care, and instead of having programs in place, supports in place, he was left by himself and died by himself.

My question to the minister responsible for the most vulnerable children in British Columbia: why was Alex not given the care he deserved and the support that he needed to lead a full life here in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There has indeed been a tragedy. My heart is with the family and friends of the young man who lost his life. I have stated and will state again for the House that the ministry’s stated direction on practice is not to place children or youth in hotels but in fact to place children and youth in our care in approved foster homes or residential resources that match their unique needs and to minimize the possibility of future moves for those children.

Hotels are and only are to be used in extreme circumstances and only with approval of the designated director and notification to the provincial director of child welfare, who will monitor those situations. In light of the tragic circumstances in Abbotsford, a review is underway so that we can determine exactly what went wrong and what happened so that we can put in place any necessary changes to prevent this from happening in the future.

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

J. Horgan: Well, a recitation of policy again from the minister is cold comfort, certainly for those who cared deeply about Alex and for those who were told explicitly that there were no children living in hotels or SROs as a result of the closure of homes in Abbotsford. Explicitly told that this was not happening.

We may not have heard about it were it not for the tragic death of Alex Gervais, and this is a pattern that’s been emerging on the minister’s watch for some time now. Isabella Wiens, a case we brought to this Legislature, a case that was being dismissed as insignificant by the ministry. Now, there is a case review underway as a result of light being shone on the actions and activities of the minister and her ministry.

[1400]

The case of Paige, well-documented by the Children and Youth Representative in this place, was discussed, raised again this summer when a young woman was left to her own devices after aging out and lost her life. Another failure by the minister and a failure by the ministry.

The case of J.P. was discussed again this summer, where the ministry disregarded a court order twice and took children away from their mother and into the care of a pedophile, against the wishes of the courts. Now, inexplicably, the ministry is appealing that decision.

In light of the pattern over the past number of months, hon. Speaker, through you to the minister, how is it possible that you can continue to believe that you have the leadership skills required to navigate…?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: How can the minister possibly believe that she has the leadership skills to navigate this sensitive ministry and stop protecting the ministry and start protecting children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I remain committed to the vulnerable children and families that this ministry serves.
[ Page 9182 ]
Front-line ministry staff dedicate themselves to supporting those same families and children. They field tens of thousands of child protection calls every year, and they support over 7,200 children in the care of the ministry.

The reality is that from time to time, we learn about circumstances that don’t go according to plan or how they should and that have, in some cases, extremely tragic outcomes. Then it is my job as minister to ensure that all of the necessary reviews and investigations take place so that we can make adjustments and changes to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

The opposition chooses to highlight only those tragic circumstances which, absolutely, result in public scrutiny and in discussion. They should. But what I see on a daily basis in my ministry and work with my ministry to achieve are facts that the opposition likes to discredit or just ignore.

I’ll present a couple for the House today. Today we have on the ground 110 more child protection workers than we did this time last year. The number of children in care is at its lowest level in over 19 years — over 3,000 children lower than in 2001. Today children in care are more likely than ever to remain safely with their family or extended family or return to that family from care. The number of children adopted is rising. That number is up 20 percent over last year, and we want to do more.

That’s the work of the dedicated social workers.

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

J. Horgan: It’s with great sadness that I stand again, after the minister’s defence of the indefensible. The minister has just recited statistics in the absence of the reality for young people, children and youth, in this province. Over the past three years, on her watch…. I recited just four examples over the past six months.

What we need in the Ministry of Children and Families is leadership. Apparently, the Premier doesn’t have a whit of interest in this file, but the minister should. The minister should have an understanding that reciting statistics does little.

I read in the press release earlier today from the ministry that they’re blaming the delegated agencies for the failures in Abbotsford. Who’s responsible for those delegated agencies? The minister. The minister is responsible for the files, the minister is responsible for the families, and the minister is responsible for the children. Will she today do the right thing and tender her resignation so that new leadership can be found to resolve the issues that have gone wanting on her watch?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just three years ago, when I was asked to assume this post, the opposition cried that there was a lack of stability in MCFD.

[1405]

There is stability under my leadership. I am proud of that. I am committed, and have been for every day of those three years, to the children and youth that we serve and, most importantly, to continually improving the system that serves them.

The member opposite raises the realities for children who age out of care. In fact, more can be done, and more has been done in the last year. In the last year, we announced new supportive housing for vulnerable youth. We provided $250,000 to establish a learning fund for young adults. We invested another $250,000 in the youth futures education fund, because we know that youth aging out of care need the same support to pursue their education as children who have parents at home. We’ve also established two new programs to support and mentor youth aging out of care.

We’re going to continue to make improvements to support vulnerable youth in this province.

D. Donaldson: Most of you in this chamber know a young person facing a mental health challenge. So you know that the image of smashed-out window on the fourth floor of the Super 8 Hotel where Alex Gervais died, a young man living in care, where he fell to his death, is a sign of utter desperation and despondency.

Alex, struggling with depression, spent months alone in the hotel room and often days without seeing his caregiver. When the group home where Alex stayed was closing down, the Premier said: “It’s a major decision to take a child out of the home they’ve known for a long time and put them somewhere else. It’s a major decision for that child, and it’s not something we take lightly in this government.”

It’s not something we take lightly. Then why did the minister let this young man in government care die alone?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member knows that I can’t speak about the individual circumstances of any case. What I can say and will say again is that the death of a young man in Abbotsford, this young man, was tragic. My heart goes out to his family and his friends. It should never have happened.

For the member opposite to suggest that the minister should get involved in the day-to-day decision-making related to child protection matters is concerning. The minister is not delegated under the CFCSA to make those types of decisions, nor should, in my mind, the political branch of government be involved in the day-to-day decisions regarding the protection of children and youth. If the member opposite thinks differently, he should say so.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, I would say something differently. Based on the feedback I hear from the people around
[ Page 9183 ]
the province, they want to see some accountability and some responsibility taken by this minister for a death of a young teen in care.

The minister says they’re conducting a review. In fact, after Alex died, we hear from the minister that 27 calls were made to see if more youth and children from this group home closure, or elsewhere, were in hotels. Not taking the situation lightly, as the Premier promised, would have meant making those calls before Alex died, not after. Almost three years ago, the children’s representative implored government to improve residential care options so that youth like Alex don’t end up in hotels. No action was taken. Now Alex is dead.

How could this minister ignore a call to action from the Representative for Children and Youth that might have saved Alex’s life?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the situation that has occurred, the tragic death that has occurred, is just that: tragic. It shouldn’t have happened. No one is disputing the concerns raised by this case, and that’s why reviews have been launched and investigations are underway. We need to let those investigations and reviews take place to determine exactly what went wrong, what consequences need to occur and what changes to broader ministry policy or direction also need to occur to prevent these things in future.

[1410]

C. James: On September 24, the Minister of Children and Family Development was asked how many months Alex was left alone in that hotel. Unbelievably, a week after his death, the minister said she didn’t know.

Could the minister tell the House today how long the ministry left Alex in crisis and alone in that hotel?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, as the member well knows, I can’t speak about individual circumstances in cases in this House — or publicly, for that matter. What I can say is that we have ways of checking and double-checking decisions that social workers make before they make them at the front lines and policies and procedures in place to guide that practice.

I am confident that the direction was given on numerous occasions to all of our front-line staff that hotel stays were not to be used, that children and youth that need to be taken into care need to be placed in foster homes or group homes that suit their needs, and that if — for a short circumstance, a temporary circumstance — a hotel stay is required, first approval must be obtained by the delegated director and notification made to the provincial director.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The minister may be confident about the policies in place and the information, but it’s very clear in this particular case and in many other cases that policies weren’t followed. Information was not correct. Things did not happen the way the minister believes they happened.

So it’s bad enough that the minister appears ill-informed about the status of children in care, but it also appears that she made no effort to ensure that her ministry gave a clear, true accounting to the Representative for Children and Youth. In fact, the representative said that when she asked questions about how the minister would care for 33 children, including Alex, when their group homes were closed down, she was told they would not be placed alone in hotels. The reality is the representative was misled.

To the minister: how can she condone the representative being misled about how Alex and other children would be cared for?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, there is certainly a tragic circumstance, a tragic ending that has happened here. That is exactly why a review needs to be undertaken to determine what happened.

What I can tell this House, as I have stated publicly previously, is that when a number of resources were closed and 33 children needed to have alternative placement plans in place, those care plans were made and approved by the provincial director of child welfare. Not one of those plans included a stay in a hotel.

Furthermore, as a result of this case, I will inform the House as well that I have directed the ministry that we will report publicly twice a year on the number of hotel stays that are incurred by the ministry.

M. Mungall: The minister earlier talked about stability. Well, a depressed teenager in ministry care dying in a hotel when he was not supposed to be there is not stability. What has been stable is these types of stories coming forward under this minister’s watch. Things are not getting better for kids. The stories that have been coming forward over recent years are gut-wrenching, they are awful, and they are beyond unacceptable. No surprise, no surprise, that the public has lost faith in this minister, so sadly, I have to ask: will she recognize that she hasn’t been able to deliver on her responsibilities, and will she resign?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Tragedies occur, and it’s never okay. It is never okay to me as minister.

[1415]

I am deeply committed to the children and youth that we serve, to their families, to making the system better. As such, we continue on a daily basis to do the work that is required to do that.

That’s why I referenced the fact that there are now 110 more social workers on the front lines over the last year. That’s why, because of that work, those improvements
[ Page 9184 ]
and the work that the social workers do with families, more children stay with their family or return home to that family, and we have fewer children in the care of the ministry than in the last 19 years.

The good work of the ministry will continue. We will continue to make improvements, like we have for youth aging out of care. There will always be more to do in this ministry, and we are committed to doing it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, the reality is that the minister shouldn’t have to launch a special investigation to find out where children in this ministry’s care are living, but that is exactly what has happened here.

After all the crisis and all the controversy that she has gone through during her tenure, how is it possible that she can’t pick up a phone and get the answers, and then do that and not take days, weeks, to actually, in the end, admit that there is nothing?

That’s not good enough. These are children. They’re children in crisis. We are the adults, and we have to do better than what’s going on in this ministry right now.

Again to the minister: the public needs to trust the person at the helm of this ministry, and she has lost that public trust, so why will she not be accountable and resign her tenure as Minister of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The clear lack of understanding of how child protection work is done — the complexity in law that actually prevents the minister from being involved with those daily cases or knowing the details of those individual cases for privacy reasons — astounds me.

However, that said, the reality is that every day, thousands of very dedicated front-line workers do very difficult work. It is difficult work emotionally. It is difficult work, working with some of the most vulnerable children in family situations that are often incredibly tumultuous.

To suggest that all of that work that they do for those thousands and thousands of families is flawed because, from time to time, there are tragic circumstances that require in-depth investigation and review…. That the member opposite would jump to a conclusion on those tragic circumstances, to me, is irresponsible.

S. Simpson: The ministry leaves a depressed teenager alone in a hotel room, and he’s found dead. The ministry tells the youth and children’s representative that this isn’t occurring and that there aren’t kids being put up in hotels. It’s not true.

The ministry defies a court order and puts children in the care of a pedophile, a decision that is condemned by the judge, and then appeals, putting the victim’s mother through another trial. A 21-month-old baby dies in the care of the ministry in a manner that the coroner says can’t be explained. The Paige report tells us of a young girl in the care of the ministry who dies on the streets of Vancouver.

[1420]

This minister has presided over a litany of failures that have too often resulted in lost or ruined lives. This is a question of leadership. This is about leadership. This is a ministry that demands leadership from its minister. This leadership has been nonexistent under the current minister. Will the minister do the honourable thing and resign now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is no diminishing the real tragedies that have occurred and do occur when we’re working with the most vulnerable citizens. But it is important when those occur or come to light that we take great detail and time in looking into what happened and determining exactly all of the things that contributed to that and how we go about changing them.

It is my job as minister to take the recommendations gleaned from those types of reviews into individual circumstances and to extrapolate them into policy and practice change for the whole ministry. That is what we are going to do.

NORTH SHORE SEARCH
AND RESCUE SOCIETY

M. Farnworth: My question is for the minister for emergency preparedness. Each year thousands of British Columbians and people from all over the world enjoy the North Shore mountains, and each year many of those same people owe their lives to the volunteers of the North Shore search and rescue service. But now it is the teams of the North Shore Search and Rescue who are in danger.

Due to a significant increase in call-outs, these volunteers are stretched to the breaking point. Will the minister responsible for emergency preparedness respond to the calls for help from the North Shore Search and Rescue with additional resources so that they can continue their life-saving work?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It doesn’t matter which side of the House you sit on, when we look at the work that these volunteers do — on weekends, at night, almost every day of the week — we have to value this incredible dedication. They provide a tremendous amount of value to the communities that they serve.

Just to put it into context, our support for the operational expenses of search and rescue teams across British Columbia — the training and some of the equipment that the government has provided — is over $6 million this year. In fact, with North Shore Rescue, they have been provided with a $100,000 gaming grant. They’ve also been provided with over $350,000 for operational ex-
[ Page 9185 ]
penses. Plus a further almost half a million dollars just this year to make sure that those expenses that are incurred in saving people….

What I can say is that I share the frustration of the folks in search and rescue. And being a resident of the North Shore, I see people, day in and day out, ignoring the simple rules. They are not prepared. I urge everyone to make sure that if they head into our hills, they’re prepared, so we don’t have to add any additional resources to North Shore Rescue.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the fact of the matter is that call-outs are increasing significantly, spiking significantly. More and more people are requiring the services of the North Shore Search and Rescue. They would not be putting out the call for help if they didn’t need to. They would not be putting out the call for additional resources if they weren’t desperate to have them.

British Columbians deserve better than what the minister just answered. North Shore Search and Rescue deserves better than what the minister just answered. Tourists and people from overseas deserve better than what the minister just answered.

[1425]

My question to the minister is this. Will she sit down with the North Shore Search and Rescue and work to find a solution, when it means providing additional resources and not just offering platitudes?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I can tell you that on the North Shore, there are no bigger champions for our local search and rescue than the local North Shore MLAs. When the helicopters come in to help rescue stranded hikers or injured hikers, the province is there to pick up those expenses. This year — and I’m sure, unfortunately, the number is going to go even higher — over $700,000 in expenses just for the helicopter search and rescues. Predominantly, those are directed towards the North Shore.

To put this into context, there are about 2,000 missions a year in Canada. About 1,300 of those are actually just in B.C. We recognize the challenge that the beauty of our outdoors provides in terms of access, but we’re absolutely committed to ensuring that the search and rescue teams across British Columbia are adequately funded.

TAX CREDIT PROPOSAL FOR
FOOD DONATIONS BY FARMERS

L. Popham: B.C. continues to have the highest poverty level in Canada. The number of people needing food banks, especially kids, is growing. Food banks are struggling to keep up. In 2013, the Liberals promised farmers tax credit if they donated food to their local food banks. Now the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting that food banks need to spend their time lobbying if they want B.C. Liberals to keep this election promise.

Is the minister’s influence in cabinet so diminished that he can’t even deliver on his own government’s promises?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Indeed, food banks are serving our B.C. population fairly well. We would like to actually encourage them to continue to do even more by providing farmers and ranchers and other people in agriculture a tax credit of up to 25 percent if they donate some food to food banks and other non-profits. It’s part of my mandate letter — working with the Ministry of Finance to make sure that it’s high on the government’s priority.

All I have to say…. I find it very ironic that the member opposite has been calling for us to have a standing committee on agriculture and the first time that I suggest appearing in front of a standing committee, she’s ditching the whole idea.

We’ll continue to work together on this side of the House to make sure we have a strong economy supporting a strong agricultural sector in this province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports.

Office of the Auditor General, An Audit of the Panorama Public Health System.

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists: Investigation Report 15-01, lobbyist: Brad Zubyk; Reconsideration Report 15-01, lobbyist: Brad Zubyk; Investigation Report 15-02, lobbyist: Ian Todd; Investigation Report 15-03, British Columbia Teachers Federation, designated filer: Moira MacKenzie.

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, Annual Report 2014-15.

Elections B.C.: Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2014 General Local Elections; Annual Report 2014-15 and Service Plan 2015-16, 2017-18; Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite; British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission Final Report, September 24, 2015.

Representative for Children and Youth, 2014-15 Annual Report and 2015-16 to 2016-17 Service Plan.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

Hon. M. de Jong: There have been some changes since we last gathered. This motion refers to one of them.

[1430]

I am pleased to move and have seconded by the member for Port Coquitlam electoral district:

[That Richard T. Lee, Member for Burnaby North Electoral District, be appointed Deputy Speaker for the remainder of this Session of the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

Hon. M. de Jong: In a somewhat similar vein, some committee changes. These were agreed to in writing between the hon. Opposition House Leader and myself on September 8, and I seek, by leave, to move a motion ratifying those changes. They are:

[That the written agreement between the Government House Leader, Hon. Michael de Jong, MLA, and the Opposition House Leader, Mike Farnworth, MLA, effective September 8, 2015 be ratified, setting forth the following changes to the membership of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and the Select Standing Committee on Health for the 4th Session of the 40th Parliament:

Claire Trevena, MLA, shall replace Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA, and Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA, shall replace Gary Holman, MLA, as Members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services; and,

Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA, shall replace Jennifer Rice, MLA, as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move that:

[Marc Dalton, MLA be appointed to replace Hon. Mike Bernier, MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading on Bill 29.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION
(EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, be read a second time now.

Bill 29 amends two acts and is intended to ensure that a fair basis of property taxation will continue, particularly for independent schools. Both the Community Charter and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act would, by this bill, be amended to ensure that property reasonably necessary for school purposes is included into the existing statutory property tax exemptions.

Currently, under the two acts, some school property that is reasonably necessary for school purposes is subject to permissive exemptions as determined by either the host municipality, with respect to the Community Charter, or by the Minister of Finance, with respect to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. Enhancing the statutory exemption to include absolutely property reasonably necessary for a school purpose will give greater certainty to independent schools and ensure, in the government’s view, a more consistent tax treatment from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

It will also clarify for municipalities the provincial government’s intention with respect to tax treatment of school property in all circumstances. Municipalities will remain able to provide permissive exemptions for school land if the land does not meet the test of being reasonably necessary for the school purpose.

[1435]

Independent schools are an important part of British Columbia’s education system. In recognition of this, they have been provided with a set of statutory and permissive property tax exemptions for over 50 years. The exemptions, both current and proposed, apply to independent schools that own and occupy a building that is wholly used to provide K-to-12 education equivalent to that of public schools.

Members will know that the bill, Bill 29, was tabled during the course of the spring session and was available for review by interested parties and members of the public. Since that time, I can advise the House that, in the intervening period of months, I can’t think of an occasion when I have been approached by a municipality professing anxiety or opposition to the provisions of the bill.

We have, as members know, just come through the UBCM. I know many members of the House were on site and intimately involved in the proceedings there. My sense from my time there and the meetings I had — and a specific request or inquiry into the UBCM — is that confirming the rules around the exemptions in the manner proposed in this bill is not a significant issue for municipalities in British Columbia or cause for concern.

The provisions of the legislation seek to confirm what has historically been the practice in British Columbia, which isn’t to say that from time to time — and more recently in the last couple of years — a couple of exceptions have occurred. But these provisions will clarify the rules consistent with the intentions of the provincial government and, I hope, consistent with the support of members in this chamber. I commend the provisions of the bill to members of this chamber.

R. Fleming: I appreciate being able to respond to this bill.
[ Page 9187 ]

Members of both sides of the House will remember that the bill was tabled on the very last sitting day, within hours literally of the Lieutenant-Governor coming to dismiss and adjourn the spring sitting of the Legislature. It was an exposure bill of sorts by government that did not afford an opportunity for debate until this very afternoon today.

I think people wondered as to the contents of the bill when it was introduced in the manner that it was. There was not a lot of transparency upon its introduction.

We had some mayors and councillors confused around British Columbia about what exactly it meant for them and their revenue authorities and tax base. We had an awful lot of education stakeholders confused about what the scope of the bill covered.

I think that government did a disservice to at least all of those with an interest in this bill, at the cover-page stage of its tabling. They did a disservice to those people by not consulting them beforehand.

I will say this on behalf of myself and I know some of my colleagues on the opposition side. We did go out and consult, as opposition members, those who could be potentially affected or viewed themselves as having a stake in the outcome of the Bill 29 discussion. That most recently occurred for some of our members at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention that occurred last week.

To be honest, many of them who are elected officials at that level of government are still in the dark about what the status quo is and about what could potentially change should government use its majority to make this bill a law and change the tax code in this way.

[1440]

That’s not a good situation. There should be a broad understanding of what that situation is like. I know that executive members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who are elected to stay on top of provincial legislative affairs, were also not consulted until very recently. Only then did it become an item on their executive agenda, to my understanding, because they took it upon themselves to do so. It was not at the initiative of government.

We’ll get to discussing the two pages of this bill and the total of four clauses in Bill 29 in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I will be interested in this debate for a number of reasons this afternoon — in part and as always because I look forward to hearing the perspectives of colleagues, both on my side of the House and opposite, who will have some interesting things to say about Bill 29, as they do on all legislation.

I’ll be interested most of all, I think, because this is the only education-related bill that I can think of since Bill 11 was rammed through this chamber in the very spring sitting where Bill 29 was tabled. I’ll be interested to see how many members of government stand up and add or contribute to debate on Bill 29.

One of the things I distinctly remember, which left a distinctly sour taste on communities and elected school trustees around British Columbia, was throughout the Bill 11 debate, where that level of local government repeatedly asked, publicly asked, the government to slow down, to consult with them, to explain the urgency for serious, significant amendments about the rights and responsibilities that are shared between the Ministry of Education, elected school boards, superintendents and all of those who administer our public schools. Those calls went unheeded.

Even worse than that, even harder to take for a lot of people who, as constituents of Liberal MLAs, wished to speak to them about it…. I can’t tell you how many letters I got from people who said they had serious concerns and questions about Bill 11, who couldn’t get a meeting with elected members who were Liberals. Those meetings would not be scheduled.

They were not permitted to meet with their MLA about concerns they had about the bill when it was before the House, when they wished to have at least the opportunity to persuade that MLA to not go after their elected school officials and to not pass new, sweeping ministerial powers that would upset the checks and balances that our school system has enjoyed for decades and decades and decades.

You know what I remember about the debate here in the chamber? It’s that government was doing everything it could to ignore and dismiss widespread concerns — tens of thousands of names on petitions, motions denouncing government for introducing Bill 11 in the manner and in the scope in which it was done — and to speed passage of Bill 11. Three members of that caucus spoke, if memory serves me correctly. They sat on their hands. They wouldn’t meet people out in their communities, and they wouldn’t defend the contents of the bill in this very chamber.

It’ll be interesting to see, on Bill 29 — which is, you know, a bill that actually won’t change anything tomorrow, if it were passed, from what goes on in the lay of the land today — if they have a lot more enthusiasm about a bill that does relatively nothing to change property tax exemption regimes out there in the 220 municipalities.

It’ll be interesting to see if they stand on their feet all the same and say some things today, when they didn’t have the guts and the courage to face their constituents about a real bill that had sweeping and radical changes to the way that public schools are governed in the province of B.C. That’ll interest me very much. We’ll be watching for that this afternoon.

[1445]

Now, I know that other members on the opposite side of the House may get to their feet and say some things. I know that there’s a real hunger out there amongst backbench members of that caucus, of the government caucus, amongst perhaps some of the newest members of cabinet, to get up and to have a wide-ranging debate about education in British Columbia, to extol the virtues of what the education sector does for an advanced and diversi-
[ Page 9188 ]
fied economy like British Columbia, to talk about — for example, as I like to do — its role in making possible and developing a large middle class, a strong and stable economy that has been built up over decades.

It’s unthinkable to have the employment and the industries and the communities that we live in without public education being invested in by governments of all different political stripes over the better part of a century.

I know that members want to talk about these kinds of things, these big-picture education items. I think it’s fair. We are, as I said, talking about a bill that’s two pages in length and four clauses. But I think it is worth looking at the context of Bill 29’s introduction.

What people want to talk about out there, when you mention education, are a couple of things. One of them is confrontation.

Why is it that public education, which is a feature, a public service that provides individuals with the greatest opportunities they can hope to have in their lives, the greatest opportunity to improve the lives of others by their own advancement and enrichment…? Why is it that an area — the school system — that brings so much joy and good news to people’s lives, where professional teachers deserve so much respect for the very difficult job we ask them to do every day…? Why is it that that very ministry, that very sector of our society which is hugely important…?

You know, 550,000 kids attend public schools in British Columbia. You can think of all of the family members, including parents and grandparents and other caregivers attached to that. But we’re talking about millions of people in British Columbia involved in the public education system, where wonderful things happen in the classroom every day in terms of discovery and achievement and the kind of atmosphere that we have there, the kinds of outcomes that we get from our students.

Why is it that in an area that is so vitally important to our economy and to the daily lives of people in British Columbia, this government visits upon it so much confrontation and chaos? We can think of it over a decade, but we can think of it most memorably about exactly where we were last September. Let’s not forget. This time last year, schools in British Columbia weren’t even open.

We had the longest school disruption in the province of British Columbia’s history just a year ago, and there was no end in sight. That is what haunts British Columbians more than anything when you put the words “education” and “B.C. Liberal” side by side. That’s, I think, a debate that, understandably, people want to have. And they will, as I do, make these points in direct relation to the contents of the bill that is before us.

You mention education again, and people out there are not talking about Bill 29, to the extent that they’re even aware of it. They’re asking fundamentally difficult questions about this government’s record. They’re saying: “How can British Columbia, under the care” — I use that term loosely — “and administration of the B.C. Liberals, go from being the second-best-funded jurisdiction in Canada, per pupil, 15 years ago to being in ninth place, just barely ahead of Prince Edward Island? How can an aspiring, advanced economy like British Columbia fall so hard and so fast in Canada?”

That’s a question that the Premier of the province and successive ministers — I hold out hope for my new colleague, the Member for Peace River South, who has been named as a new minister — have failed to answer. I neglected to introduce him earlier at the outset of these remarks.

[1450]

It is those big-picture fundamentals that people are asking about, how they can be so badly neglected by this government — when apparently its priorities are completely somewhere else. They’re about changing laws that don’t impact anything, like the contents of Bill 29 — changing clauses of a couple of pieces of legislation that aren’t interpreted, aren’t even at risk of being interpreted — or misinterpreted, if the Minister of Finance wants to put it that way — and that will make no difference tomorrow from what we have in place today.

There will be no revenue transfer. There will be no change. There will be, as far as mayors and councillors now understand — and we’ll get into this at committee stage of debate — almost nothing different, but yet this is the latest and greatest thing in a massive sector like education to occupy the government’s attention.

It’s unbelievable that instead of addressing head-on the concerns of British Columbians about how underwhelming, how confrontational, the approach of this government is towards a thing like education, the second-largest ministry in government, it isn’t investing more interest in the opportunities of British Columbians themselves that are dependent and reliant upon a strong education system.

When I first read Bill 29, I had an immediate concern. That was the very same concern that, I think, a number of mayors and councillors who were availed of its existence had as well. And that was: is there a double standard here at play? Was this government being, in fact, even-handed, levelling the playing field, championing the principles of equivalency, as they said they were, or was there something being given to the independent sector in education that was completely at odds with what was happening within public education?

Let’s go back to May 29, when Bill 29 was brought into this place. At that point in time, what was dominating the discussion around education was how the government that had said they would fully fund the implementation and costs of a new teachers contract had, in fact, betrayed that very word last spring and brought in $54 million of new additional cuts to public education, falling far short of funding the total costs of education.

The Premier went out and, to school trustees who asked, “How could you break your promise so soon after
[ Page 9189 ]
it was made?” outrageously said: “Well, it’s up to you to figure out how to make those cuts. You’ve got ‘low-hanging fruit’ all over the place in your districts.”

Of course, people would say: “Well, hang on. Is there a double standard here between Bill 29, whatever it means, and what we’re hearing from the Premier of the province, writ large, about public education?” We know that we can’t take the Premier’s word when it comes to speaking truthfully to the public education sector. We know that. I’ve just given the example around the $54 million of cuts.

This bill is talking about land and buildings and the capital side of education. We know you can’t trust her when it comes to commitments she has made to parents around B.C. that all schools in our province would become seismically safe by 2020. She made that promise originally in 2003. She made it again in 2005, again in 2011 and then, most memorably, on the eve and actually during, I believe, the writ period, in April 2013, looking into the camera and saying: “Your child’s safety is my number one priority.” I think I’m quoting exactly. If I’m not, I will amend that later.

She looked straight into the cameras and told those parents directly, who are of high concern about their children studying in seismically unsafe schools…. Who wouldn’t be? What parent wouldn’t be? We have a building stock in places like Vancouver and in Richmond and around this area as well, all up and down the coast….

They’re in one of the most seismically active regions of the world. That’s a building stock in some communities that is over 100 years old, if you look at some of the schools in Vancouver, in particular. It needs to be fixed. Government knows it needs to be fixed, so it says it will fix it, and then it breaks its word.

[1455]

Again, my concern was: “Hang on. Is there something being done for one side of the education sector, the independent schools, that is being given in legislation that directly contrasts from a broken promise around a capital budgeting and the promises to fix our schools?” We had to go away and look at that before we had the opportunity to respond today to the bill.

I have had the opportunity now to look at the bill more closely, to discuss it with those who hold elected office in local government, and it looks to me, in the comments I’ve had from those mayors and councillors who have forwarded me their comments, that in fact it won’t change what happens in their jurisdictions.

The current legislation…. I’ll read the clause that I think is of greatest interest here and that we’ll spend some time on in the committee stage of the debate. The current lay of the land, if you like, explicitly prohibits property taxes being applied to independent schools and the land on which the building stands.

Now, Bill 29 will change that to include the land on which the building stands, the building itself, of course — so that’s the same — but the area of land surrounding the land referred to in that section of the original legislation. This will include — and we heard the Minister of Finance speak to it at first reading — “playing fields, athletic grounds and facilities, playgrounds and improvements related to any of them; storage, maintenance and administrative facilities…parking lots, walkways and roads.” So those are all within the envelope of the schools.

Now, there are no taxes received by — I won’t say any, but the vast, vast majority. Perhaps 99.7 percent of municipalities in British Columbia right now are, if you will, compliant with a bill that is not yet law.

Bill 29 will — I didn’t know this — make the rest of the province compliant with the Vancouver Charter, which has language that is closer to the bill before us today than the original legislation that is being amended in the Community Charter. But there was one thing — and I will visit this tomorrow with the minister — that I didn’t see in his first reading remarks.

I recall that this was the first opportunity that anybody had to know that this bill was even within the government’s agenda, because it wasn’t a feature of the last election and it wasn’t a feature of any throne speech. It wasn’t given any legislative priority in the deputy minister’s notes that we’ve FOI’d and received, so it did come out of the blue. No mayor and councillor had been consulted, as I mentioned earlier. So we had to take the first reading remarks of the Minister of Finance as the explanation at the time.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Not as gospel, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley says, but as a straight-up explanation of what the bill contained.

Now, he didn’t mention one thing in his remarks that is in the bill, and that is around dormitories for students. Now, he motivated his Bill 29 by saying that we’re creating an equivalency between public and independent schools. All of these tax exemptions are, of course, part of the public school system currently. We’re merely putting the playgrounds and playing fields of independent schools, which aren’t taxed, by and large, saving one or two exceptions provincewide…. We’re merely putting that into law so that the law is updated and equivalent.

Well, public schools don’t have dormitories, so there is, perhaps, an area of questioning where we might want to ask about this. Dormitories don’t exist at very many independent schools — just a tiny fraction of a certain category, I think, of the independent schools.

[1500]

It bears explaining by this government why, when there is a raging debate out there about housing affordability and the challenge that it poses for a jurisdiction like Metro Vancouver, for example, where, literally…. The real estate values there are second only to, perhaps, Paris and Moscow and a couple of high-priced…. It is in the top-five-valued real estate jurisdictions.
[ Page 9190 ]

Housing affordability is an extreme challenge for mayors and councils and provincial governments and the federal government to address adequately. The response has been inadequate, but we’ll save that debate for another time.

There are a lot of non-profit housing associations or residential care facilities, for example, that try and help people who have limited means, on fixed incomes, have a roof over their head. That’s the mandate, as a society or as an institution, that these non-profits have. They don’t enjoy a full 100 percent property tax exemption. It varies from municipality to municipality. Some do. Some don’t. Some do in certain places. Some don’t in other areas.

It just seems a bit odd to me for the government to motivate this as: “We’re just trying to make everything equivalent in the independent school sector to the public school sector.” But we have this anomaly that kind of sticks out for me — not only within the bill itself and in the education sector but within the kinds of problems that we ought to be talking about here in British Columbia.

I mean, how do you contain costs and help people build affordable housing, which we’re so desperately short of? In my own community this summer it was all about a homeless crisis that had grown visibly larger and was very, very difficult to respond to. It sparked a debate about why we have not been able to open more units of supervised housing or shelter beds or affordable housing of all types that are needed by different people who find themselves in a desperate situation and who are homeless — or our constituents who can’t save up for a down payment who want to get into the housing market.

These are problems that…. Housing is probably one of the things that occupies the anxieties as well as the hopes of a lot of British Columbians when they talk around the dinner table and what they’re trying to do in terms of improving lives for their families. They can’t, in all cases, make ends meet in this regard. Housing is their biggest challenge in their lives. And here we have a property tax exemption that will stand for all time for dormitories, which has never been in legislation before.

I find that odd, as a government priority. I find a lot of the government’s priorities odd, it must be said. I found it very strange that at a time when they cut $55 million, as I mentioned, from the public education budget last spring, that same budget had a $230 million tax cut for millionaires who didn’t even ask for a tax cut. It is, perhaps, within that vein of mysterious, bizarre decisions that I’ll have to ask those questions at committee stage about where the dormitory issue fits in with this government.

To get back to the contents of the bill in a moment but also, I think, a secondary concern about this government’s conduct around the provision of education. I mentioned how many people are involved with the public education system who were…. This doesn’t apply to those parents and students in the independent sector, because they weren’t touched by the disruption that lasted four months of the last two school years prior to this one. The confrontation — I spoke to this — is the number one concern. We’re now, I think, about to go before the Supreme Court of Canada for legislation that was brought in, in 2002 that was utterly confrontational.

The other twin occupation, I think, or secondary concern, dual concern, that British Columbians have about this government’s approach is complacency.

[1505]

Most people would tell you that all of the good things that they associated with public schools during their own school lives and during years gone by that they can recall, they wish existed now. That is, individual attention for students, lower class sizes, better funding, a time when there weren’t fees for Kleenex, for heaven’s sakes, or photocopies or when the school bus didn’t cost you, out-of-pocket fees that are more expensive than to send your son or daughter to hockey and sports.

Middle-class British Columbians are getting hammered by fees being assessed on public school parents, and it’s because there’s a complacency about the funding situation in British Columbia. We’ve fallen to ninth. I mentioned that earlier.

There’s also a complacency about the results within our school system. I mean, here we are in the second decade of the 21st century and still one in five kids do not complete high school, do not graduate. You cannot have a high functioning, sustainable and prosperous economy without continuous improvement in the area around graduation completion and relevancy. I understand that teachers have been driving curriculum reform and all those kinds of things to try and address this, but it comes down to other things than that to keep students engaged.

The complacency is also around…. The previous minister would always say: “Look at the test results. We’re doing great. So why should we strive to do any better?” Essentially, that was the government message.

How sad, especially when, actually, British Columbia was resting on its laurels, essentially. Student achievements had, in fact, begun to slip both in the OECD’s PISA assessments — which began to go from the top of the pack to somewhere close to the middle, beginning in 2003, and stubbornly remained there in subsequent reporting that comes out every five years — and within a Canadian measurement system, the pan-Canadian assessment program. That saw math scores for 13-year-olds in B.C. trailing three other provinces and, in fact, in a three-way tie for fourth place. We were moving from being first or second in almost every category to somewhere in the middle of the pack and falling further behind in different subject matters as a result.

Confrontation and complacency around funding and results are the areas that occupy the concerns.

We will continue to scrutinize this bill to make sure that it’s on the level, as the minister said it would be. I take my place in this debate for the time being.
[ Page 9191 ]

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you to the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the critic for education, who has an amazing skill of being able to talk about everything except the bill that was on the floor. So that was actually kind of exciting.

This is really easy for me to also get to a place where I can tell you the facts. Actually, it’s really important to understand why we’re actually here today, why we’re discussing this bill.

Independent schools are an important part of our education system. In fact, on this side of the House we pride ourselves on giving parents the choice, here in British Columbia, of how they choose to have their children educated. This Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act supports choices for parents and students, and that’s what this is about. With nearly 81,000 students and 350 independent schools across B.C., there are choices here.

Government is making sure independent schools are treated the same across this province when it comes to property taxation, no matter what municipality that school happens to be in. Bill 29, which we’re talking about today, ensures that all property needed for school purposes receives property tax exemption. It also gives greater certainty to independent schools and ensures a more consistent tax treatment throughout jurisdictions here in the province of B.C.

The passing of this bill is an important step in our education system. One of the things that we pride ourselves on here in the province of British Columbia is that we do have some of the best educational outcomes in the world. British Columbia is recognized not only in Canada but globally for that. We’re proud of that reputation. We will continue to work with all the schools, public and independent, to build B.C.’s world-class education system.

[1510]

Today I’d say was a perfect example of that. Prior to the House rising today, I was fortunate enough to be part of a landmark event. This is where we had all of our partners in the education system all together promoting education here in British Columbia — promoting opportunities for teachers as we roll out the new curriculum. This was an amazing day for education because it really shows the collaboration. It shows the opportunities, and it shows what’s possible here when we all work together.

Because of the hard work that’s been done in the ministry in the past with the B.C. Teachers Federation to get to a landmark and a long, extended negotiated agreement in the classrooms…. That allows us the opportunities now to do what’s important, to make sure that we have the best educational outcomes in the world and to strive to do even better.

We do great work here in British Columbia, and we know we can do better, and that’s why I’m looking forward to the opportunities in front of us. But we have to make sure that everybody is treated fairly, everybody has the same opportunities, and everybody has the choices here in British Columbia.

This property tax exemption for independent schools, found in the Community Charter and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, is currently divided into two portions, as was mentioned: the mandatory portion, which is only covering the school building and the land directly beneath that building, and then the permissive section, which allows land surrounding a school building to be exempted.

As mentioned earlier, this bill expands what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemption to include the land that is reasonably necessary for school purposes, and as was mentioned, this does include playgrounds, playing fields, parking lots — the parts that are important to the schools to operate a good school system.

This is not about creating a new exemption. Municipalities have actually adhered to the long-standing policy to provide property tax exemption to independent schools for as long as I can remember. This is not about expanding the exemptions to new schools. Government left the school qualifications the same in terms of ownership, use and equivalency to public education.

Some communities — only a few — have recently changed their policy with regards to independent schools and have begun denying the independent schools the permissive portion of this exemption. Other city councils have actually considered following suit.

Independent schools, if this was to take place, would face increased property taxes which may require them to raise fees for their students, possibly cut programs or, even worse, force them to close down their schools.

So this bill will actually help facilitate that independent school not only have the same opportunities as everybody else, but that they’ll be able to operationally function in a fair way.

Our government, as I mentioned…. We support choices. We support choices for education. We support parents to make those choices for their kids. We have some of the best educational outcomes in the world. Again, that is because of the amazing work that our teachers here have….

It’s important that parents know this. It’s important that parents know when they send their child out of the home in the morning to go off to school that they’re getting the best education that we can offer here in the province of British Columbia.

I’m really proud of the work that this ministry has done in the past. I’m really looking forward…. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to stand in the House as the new Minister of Education. [Applause.]

Oh, thank you. I know there’s a lot of work ahead. I know that work can’t be done alone through the ministry. That work is going to be done with the amazing partners that we have in the education system.

As we’re rolling out the new curriculum — we were transitioning over three years with this new curriculum
[ Page 9192 ]
— one thing that’s really important is the great work that’s being done, not only with the relationships with the First Nations educational council but with the schools and with the teachers themselves — that we’re putting such a strong focus on aboriginal content within our curriculum. This is something that’s amazing as we go forward, something that’s really important.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: You know, I’m being criticized for going off of the topic of Bill 29. I guess I did criticize the member opposite for doing the same, but I’ll try to stick at least to education and not affordable housing within the Lower Mainland, which he’d like to go to.

[1515]

I think the main focus about today is just about fairness. This bill actually on the floor today — I’m looking forward to hearing the comments from the members opposite. Through his half hour of speaking — the critic — I didn’t actually hear whether he supported this bill or not. I didn’t hear any comments at all about supporting choices. I didn’t hear any comments at all about supporting independent schools. All I heard were comments about everything but this bill.

Today we’re actually talking about this bill, and I think it’s really important. As we move forward, I’m looking forward to hearing members on the opposite side of the House standing and, hopefully, supporting an important bill that gives opportunities for all students in British Columbia.

R. Austin: Let me begin by congratulating the new Minister of Education. On this side of the House, I’d like to welcome him into this post. We look forward to a new relationship that the minister is going to bring in this House with all the education stakeholders of British Columbia.

Actually, I was watching the minister’s first public comments. One of the things he was saying was that he recognizes, post the strike, that there needs to be a new tone and a new relationship built between his government, the one that he now represents as the lead person on education…. He recognized in that comment that some work needs to be done.

Having been here since 2005 and also having witnessed some of the stuff between 2001 and 2005, I would agree with the hon. minister that lots of work needs to be done in terms of changing that relationship between his government and the education establishment of British Columbia.

With regard to Bill 29, the comments from the Finance Minister took a matter of minutes, and the comments from the Education Minister took only a few minutes more than that. I guess the reason is that it’s a very small bill with very little significance whatsoever. To stand here and make out that it’s anything other than that is a little bit foolish. The minister alludes to the fact that municipalities were looking at suddenly deriving huge amounts of money from these independent schools. This is erroneous.

The fact that the law hasn’t been brought up to date to create legislative equality between the public school system and the private school system is kind of irrelevant when municipalities have not been taxing any of these properties. They’ve regarded the private schools just as they regard the public schools and have not been seeking taxes from them.

So I don’t think, once this bill is passed — and I won’t be opposing it, because there’s not much here to oppose — tomorrow is going to be any different than today or, indeed, yesterday. It would be interesting, in committee stage, when our critic delves into it, to see exactly which municipalities were thinking about upping taxes on parts of private schools. I don’t think it’ll derive much revenue, if at all.

Anyway, it’s clear that if you look at the history of British Columbia, 98 or 99 percent of municipalities have not been deriving any money. So I don’t think there’s a lot of money at stake here, and therefore, we’re opening the session here with a little bit of a bill about nothing. It’s like a Seinfeld episode.

You know, I have three independent schools in my constituency. I have St. Anthony’s in Kitimat. I have Centennial Christian School in Terrace. I have Veritas School in Terrace. I think my community is symbolic of a lot of small communities of British Columbia, which is that people who have chosen to send their children to these schools have a particular religious affiliation. They’re parochial schools.

They want to be able to have their children, if they’re Catholic or of some specific Christian denomination, go to a school where they can derive some religious education in addition to the curriculum that other children get in the public school system. I can safely say that none of the people that I think of who go to the bulk of private schools, which is the parochial school system, are privileged or wealthy in any sense. I think they’re just regular British Columbians who want to have their kid go to a Khalsa school or a Catholic school or a Christian school, because they want to have some religious instruction.

[1520]

They’re not wealthy. They probably make quite a big sacrifice to even pay those modest school fees, because that is important to them to include that religious education. I think that’s fine. I think that’s good for them to be able to do that, and I’m glad that we live in a pluralistic society that allows folks to retain their religious affiliation if they believe that that’s important for their kids. To that extent, I’m all for choice.

What I do also believe, though, is that while we have a government that seems to think that this is very, very important, I think they need to recognize that for most
[ Page 9193 ]
British Columbians who think about public education…. The majority of British Columbians have their kids in the public school system. When they see us debating something like this, they’re probably wondering why it is that a government can get up and be so enthusiastic about supporting a bill which I don’t think is going to bring a heck of a lot of difference to the private school system. But anyway, that’s for the government to decide.

Why is it that the government thinks it’s so important to be bringing this as the first piece of legislation in this session, when that vast majority of parents and kids and school trustees have had to make very difficult choices on the public school side because of the challenges that are there fiscally?

Today, the minister had a very nice event, something that has been coming for a long time in terms of trying to change the school curriculum. I think that if the minister spoke about it, I can bring it in, as well, as part of my sweeping remarks on Bill 29 — panoramic remarks.

Honestly, let’s look at this for a second. You know, we have an event here today. Teachers have been involved as the professionals in helping to shape the new curriculum. There’ve been school trustees here. There’ve been superintendents here. And there’s been a recognition, by and large, in the broader philosophical discussion around education that in the 21st century, education needs to change direction from what it was in the 20th century. I think that most of us who have spent time in the classroom would agree that the kind of style of teaching, the very prescriptive kind of curriculum, that has done us so well in the 20th century is not necessarily the kind of curriculum that we need in the 21st century.

Interjection.

R. Austin: The minister says that I’m coming off his speaking notes. I think all of us would agree on that, but you know, here is the challenge. When we talk about fairness and opportunity and choice, here’s the challenge with all of this. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the classroom, supporting teachers as an educational assistant. While it is wonderful to think of the notion that teachers, instead of having a very prescriptive curriculum, can go to little Johnny or to little Mary and inquire of that child what their particular passion is in an area of learning and then try and link that kid’s passion to the learning outcomes. It’s wonderful. It’s not just wonderful in theory; it’d be wonderful if it could happen.

But here are the challenges. The challenges are that you’ve got a school system, which, over a 15-year period, has not had the kind of resources put in to allow a teacher to have the individual time to go and speak to that individual child to give them personalized learning. That’s the challenge, right? So while you’ve got teachers saying: “You know what? This would be lovely. I’d love to be able to have more project-based learning. I’d love to have more opportunities to engage my kids on an individual basis, to try and fire them up and to use their own passions for learning.”

While that would be wonderful, the reality is that if you’re in a class with an average of 30 kids, and four or five of them have special needs, where in the heck in the world is the time for you to go and actually engage that child? It just isn’t there.

You need to have this discussion. I’m hoping that this new Education Minister will have that discussion at the cabinet table and recognize that the changes that he’s trying to bring in, which have come about from years and years of consultation and have been supported by teachers, require the necessary resources in the classroom so that those teachers can do what it is that he’s hoping they can do.

Otherwise, what’s going to happen is that teachers will continue to use the old curriculum, because it is prescriptive and it enables them to at least create one lesson plan for all of the kids, and then make some modifications for the few who have some special needs.

[1525]

But the idea that a teacher has the time to go and engage 30 kids individually, find out what it is they’re excited about and then try and create lesson plans around that is a bit of a challenge — not just a bit of a challenge, a huge challenge. These choices that the government likes to talk about also refer to the choices that the government makes in terms of how they fund our public education system.

I read somewhere here that on the day that Bill 29 was released…. The press release came out from the Independent Schools Association. I’m quoting here from ISABC on May 29. The head of the Independent Schools Association said: “Today is another good day for independent schools in B.C.” Hooray. Wonderful.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you had the School Trustees Association or the president of the BCTF or just families, just parents, standing up and saying: “Hey, today’s a great day for kids in the public education system.” We haven’t heard that a lot in the last 14 or 15 years. It would be nice if we could hear that just once — if, just once, people could actually come up here and get excited about what this government is doing for the majority of children in our public school system, instead of getting excited about what they’re doing just for those who, for their own choice, decide to send their kids to a private school, most of which are parochial schools.

I think that this bill is symbolic in the sense that…. What I’m hoping for is to see legislation come forward — maybe not in this session but maybe in the spring session, certainly in the budget — that recognizes the challenges that the public education system has endured over many, many years.

Again, I can open up a door here and go through the door that the minister opened. He said that they’re very
[ Page 9194 ]
happy to have had a long-term agreement, a six-year agreement, finally, with the teaching profession, which allows them to have some stability and allows the school system to breathe a little without turmoil and solve some of the problems.

But the strike also made some promises. The major promise that the strike resolution made — and the Premier spoke to this — was that they would deal with composition. They would understand that teachers are overwhelmed in classes and that they would deal with composition. Well, I haven’t heard anything so far from the government side, and we’ll see what happens in the budget coming up next year to deal with composition.

At the end of the day, composition requires hiring more teachers. It’s about how many minutes every child gets to have individual attention from a teacher that enables the class and the teacher to do their job and the class to run properly. It’s those composition issues, largely, that have been the source of so much strife between the government and the teaching profession and the trustees, who have to make those difficult decisions.

At the end of the day, the government here decides on how much money is going on block to the school trustees. Then, the school trustees, over the last 15 years, have had to make the horrible decisions, the difficult decisions, the decisions that weren’t made here because various Education ministers can say: “Well, we’re giving more per-pupil student funding than ever before.”

Meanwhile, the needs of the schools have been greater. Bills have gone up that have not been funded, such as MSP, etc., so what we’ve seen is that in spite of the increase in per-pupil student funding, overall student funding has not gone up to keep up with the needs. That’s why you’ve had so many cuts.

I’m hoping that once this bill is passed, we can get on to, in the future, very expansive bills that deal with public education — bills that recognize some of the challenges in the education system.

At the end of the day, this bill is really about something that municipalities should have had more say in than those of us on the opposition side here. I was at UBCM last week along with, I think, probably most MLAs in the House. This was not a topic of huge consternation at UBCM. Those that I spoke to locally weren’t even aware of it.

Like I say, I honestly don’t think that very much is going to change tomorrow once this bill has been passed. I am hoping that I can hear some more interesting comments from the government-side members, and I look forward tomorrow to having the very short committee stage so we can find out some details.

But I guess that aside from dormitories, I can’t think of any real other areas where any municipality would ever thought about going and gaining taxation. So with that, I shall cede the floor to somebody else to speak.

[1530]

S. Gibson: It’s good to be back in the Legislature today with all my colleagues here on both sides of the House.

As the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Education for independent schools, it’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 29. In my role, I’ve had the opportunity to engage with independent schools throughout school visits and to participate in many events.

This bill ensures that independent schools in municipalities across the province will be treated the same when it comes to property taxation. This is because the property tax exemptions for independent schools are currently divided into two categories: mandatory and permissive. This bill expands what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemption.

Currently, the mandatory exemptions cover school buildings and the land immediately under those buildings. The buildings must be owned and occupied by the independent school, and they must be wholly used for the purpose of giving instruction to children that is equivalent to that offered by a public school. It is up to the municipalities to decide whether to provide property tax exemptions or not. This means the lands surrounding the school building are not currently mandatorily exempt; nor are administrative buildings, core school properties, playgrounds, playing fields and parking lots.

What will be added to the mandatory exemption is property that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of an independent school. By introducing this bill, our government is ensuring that independent schools in different municipalities are treated the same when it comes to property taxation. This will ensure that the facilities that an independent school requires will function as a school and won’t be taxed. Playing fields and parking lots are part of the core properties for schools.

Municipalities have adhered to a long-standing policy to provide property tax exemptions to independent schools, but some municipalities have begun changing their policy. They’ve begun to deny the independent schools the permissive portion of the exemption, and other municipalities are considering following suit.

Currently, only a few municipalities began denying these permissive exemptions. This currently affects five independent schools in our province. However, if all municipalities move in this direction, the collective cost is estimated to be approximately $15 million to $30 million annually.

This bill is not about creating a new exemption; rather, it is expanding what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemptions. This bill is also not about expanding the exemptions to new schools. School qualifications have been left the same. I also want to note that we are not proposing this bill to raise or maintain revenue. This bill is to get the correct result for independent schools. The Federation of Independent School Associations has requested that legislative amendments be considered to address this inequality.
[ Page 9195 ]

Today I am here speaking for a bill that does just that. The federation is an umbrella organization of associations that represent 297 independent schools in British Columbia. Last year, over 80,000 students were enrolled in independent schools. That represents approximately 13 percent of students enrolled in K to 12 — attending an independent school.

Without this bill, there is the chance that other municipalities will move towards denying independent schools the permissive portion. This could lead to an increase in fees and to programs being cut. This could cost transfers back to B.C. families.

We have had three ministries working together on this bill. The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and also the Ministry of Finance have been working together on ensuring this bill does the job.

[1535]

This bill will amend the Community Charter and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act in order to provide a way to minimize the contradictory legislative framework. In other words, it will avoid that problem.

As well, the province has fulfilled its duty of consulting with the UBCM over changes to the Community Charter before legislation is tabled. The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has done that, and the UBCM has no reaction at this time.

Our government supports choices for parents and students, whether through public or independent schools. This bill ensures that independent schools across British Columbia will be treated the same when it comes to property taxation. I am pleased to add my voice to this discussion here in the Legislature today.

D. Eby: There are a number of private schools in my constituency. Some are big; some are small. Last week I visited one of these school that falls into the small-school category. It’s called the Eaton Arrowsmith School. It’s got fewer than 100 students. They’re tucked into an office tower up at the University of British Columbia, where students and teachers grapple with the business of learning every day.

Now, like a lot of private or independent schools in our province, Eaton Arrowsmith is unique. I first heard about this school — they keep it very low profile — from a father and a daughter who were at a Kids for Charity bike parade out at UBC. I had a conversation with them about what brought them to British Columbia from Australia.

This family came all the way to Vancouver — they started in Victoria, and then they moved to Vancouver — for this particular school. The daughter of the pair struggles with reading. She has a learning disability that makes it difficult for her to read. Eaton Arrowsmith, she explained to me, has innovative training, a series of exercises that they incorporate with curriculum to literally — these are her words — “rewire” her brain to overcome this disability and return to public school after three or four years of concentrated effort.

Now, this is exciting, cutting-edge work and research that’s actually linked together out at the University of British Columbia. In fact, UBC researchers are actually scanning the brains of these students to physically measure the impact of the program on the learning centres of the brain.

I was told that the student population at this school, when I visited the school and met with the principal and staff there, includes locals, as well as international students, with a disproportionate number of Australians, apparently, due to the school’s reputation over there.

The girl I met, who’s very proud to be attending Eaton, said that as soon as her brain is retrained using the school’s method, she’ll be back in public school with her pals in Australia. She was ready to do the work. She and her father were ready to make the sacrifices required to ensure she had every opportunity that every other kid had that didn’t struggle with the challenges that she was born with.

There’s another private school in my community. An independent school — some people prefer that term. Fraser Academy provides specialized attention for students — also with language and learning disabilities. Parents send their children to Fraser Academy, like Eaton Arrowsmith, to ensure that the child’s future is not defined by that learning disability, that they can experience the maximum possible benefit that life has to offer and that they can seize opportunities that come their way.

On the North Shore, another one. Kenneth Gordon Maplewood School has the same mandate. Their mandate is to be a centre for excellence in “developmentally informed instruction that empowers children with learning disabilities in a passionate, progressive and inspiring learning environment.”

Now, I understand what would cause a father to pick up his daughter from Australia, to move that family to another country for three to four years in order to give her an opportunity, in her adult life, that she might not otherwise be able to access. I think most of us understand the love that a parent would have for a child that would make them want to do something as dramatic as that.

Are there any parents out there who, if their means allowed it, would not move heaven and earth to give their children these kinds of opportunities to overcome those challenges — to learn as much as possible, to fulfil their promise? If there are any such parents, it’s probably a very short list.

I support the idea of supporting schools where parents — desperate to ensure their children receive the kinds of support that will ensure they can overcome the challenges they face and succeed as adults — are willing to travel around the world, pay thousands of dollars and make huge personal sacrifices to see that happen for their children.

[1540]

As a result, I support those schools, I support those parents, I support those kids, and I will vote to support this bill.

But on the topic of what’s not being talked about, in light of this bill, I also support the idea of this level of legislative interest and support for public schools so that our public schools can also offer the kinds of innovative and intensive programs, currently offered only in private schools, to all children across the province, not just the children of parents who are able, often at great personal sacrifice, to pay for programs or to move where programs are offered.

Every child with a learning disability deserves the kind of learning support, the kind of experimentation and innovation, the kind of programming offered in these private schools. Closing that gap and bringing all children along to a prosperous and successful future in British Columbia is simply not the direction of this government.

In fact, our Legislature is not talking about enhanced and innovative supports in public schools for all parents whose children struggle with learning disabilities. Currently, right now, in the province of B.C., parents of children in the public system are talking about classrooms that don’t even have basic supplies funded by the provincial government.

I listened to a radio show on the weekend as parent after parent called in to share with the host the experience of being asked by teachers to donate supplies to underfunded classrooms. Many reported having been asked to buy photocopier paper so teachers can photocopy worksheets. Not only is photocopier paper not available under current budgets, but up-to-date textbooks aren’t available in necessary quantities either.

Forget the special programs for kids with learning disabilities. Forget about advanced technology access or classroom lessons on programming or computer basics across B.C. I had a student come into my office and say that her school’s atlases still have the Soviet Union in them.

Instead of this Legislature turning our minds to what is fairly described, I think, as a serious issue about how we ensure B.C.’s public schools have the minimum resources necessary to provide basic public education in 2015 to all children in the province, we’re spending our time to pass a bill that…. And let’s be frank. Most people have looked at…. Certainly, for the schools in my constituency, their operating budgets will remain the same after this bill is passed as they are right now. They are not charged property tax.

When parents of children with learning disabilities or autism or any other disability or challenge come to my office and ask for support for their kids from the provincial government, kids they can’t afford to send into these innovative, interesting and exciting programs that will support their children…. When they come to ask me what we’re doing in the Legislature, I’ll have to tell them that this government is spending our time passing symbolic bills that, in terms of the day-to-day reality for private schools in B.C., simply clarify what the province would like cities to do.

B.C. has more young people out of work and out of school on a per-capita basis than any province in Canada. This statistic comes from the Stats Canada labour force data, which doesn’t even measure the situation on rural reserves in British Columbia, where employment opportunities are very limited. Now, I think this statistic is properly described as a crisis, and I believe it’s the direct result of a lack of adequate support for our public system for kids with learning disabilities and other challenges — those who need a little extra support to succeed, for whatever reason, including language training.

I look forward to the day when a bill is presented by this new Education Minister…. Congratulations to him on his new post. I look forward to the day when he presents a bill to this Legislature that would improve life for literally thousands of B.C. families by addressing this issue. Instead, in the meantime, we have this bill, which I will be voting in favour of.

M. Hunt: I rise to speak to Bill 29, which is before us. I’m certainly pleased to hear the comments from the members opposite on various items and things. I will do my best to keep focused on this bill and what’s before us.

I certainly find it interesting that the members that have spoken from the opposition so far are saying this is a relatively nothing bill — that this is almost irrelevant, and we’ll just pop it in here. In fact, they’re almost right. There, fortunately, aren’t many jurisdictions where there is a problem that this bill is working to address.

[1545]

I’d just like to tell you a little bit of why I got involved in politics. I know some are going to say: “Well, you’re really straying from the subject.” Well, actually, I’m not. What happened with societies that I was working with…. I was financial administrator of three charitable societies. These charitable societies all operated off of the same piece of property. In fact, if we went through the Municipal Act of the day, we found that all three of those functions were property tax–exempt functions.

There had been a society that previously was on the property — in fact, owned the property — and we were negotiating to purchase it. While we were going through that process, we were doing almost exactly the same things that the society before us had been doing. But all of a sudden, when we came to get that tax exemption for that property, the answer was no. We weren’t allowed to get that.

So you go: “Well, why aren’t we allowed the tax exemption that the previous society doing almost exactly the same thing got?” Well, it was simply: “We’re not giving it to you.” There was an arbitrariness about it. Then we started through the process. Actually, this ended up go-
[ Page 9197 ]
ing through not only the local city council but also going through B.C. Assessment Authority, and we ended up with a process that took over seven years until, finally, the members of this House, in 1985, gave tax exemption to that piece of property.

The interesting thing was that it all comes down to the individual civil servant, how they choose to interpret the act. You’ll notice, for example, in the amendments that are before us here in Bill 29, that it says that the institution needs to be “actually occupied and wholly in use by the incorporated institution.” Well, some will interpret “wholly used” to be “solely used.” So if you have three societies on the same property doing different work, all of a sudden it was: “Well, each one of those is property tax–exempt, but we’re going to give you nothing.”

Now, in my humble opinion, that didn’t make any sense, and that began, as I said, a 7½-year process of working to get that property tax-exempt, because we had to continually argue that each one of these uses were…. Although they were not solely the users of the property, together they wholly used the property. And of course, as I said, we ended up in the Legislature here — with the Legislature and, again, similar comments: “Well, we hope we’re not giving something extra to these people.”

Well, actually, what is happening here is that I believe that we, as a government, are trying to simply clear up the understanding of what is, in most municipalities around this province, their clear interpretation of the statutory and permissive exemptions: that a school and the building is tax-exempt.

Obviously, there are grounds around it that are an integral part of the school. For example, we like to promote physical education. Well, those are usually held on sports fields that aren’t a building. They are a grass field. Obviously, people have to come to and from. There are parking lots involved. There’s landscaping involved. There’s all this other stuff that goes with it that makes the building whole and the functions whole. Unfortunately, there have been some civil servants in this province who have decided: “Well, that’s not exempt. We’re not worried about them having physical education. We’re going to start taxing those properties.”

So I am very much speaking in favour of this because this is simply clearing up what has been, obviously, a misunderstanding to some. It is simply trying to make sure that we have that clarity throughout the province so that every independent school is being treated equally, the same, and treated the same as public schools — which, for some of us, has been an interesting challenge in the past. Hopefully, we want to clear this up so that everybody is being treated the same and everybody clearly knows what the rules are so that everybody can operate the same.

I speak in favour and will be voting in favour of Bill 29.

[1550]

C. James: It’s my pleasure to stand up and speak to Bill 29 and to speak about education.

I want, first, to say my congratulations as well to the new Education Minister. It’s an issue…. The previous member talked about his reasons for getting into politics. My reasons for getting into politics were directly tied to education. It was during the Vander Zalm cuts and during the years when my kids were in elementary school. I started showing up on picket lines and protests to protest against cuts to education and was told to put my money where my mouth was. I ran for school board and served on school boards. So beware of where that takes you in all of this.

Education is near and dear to my heart as well. That’s why I’m pleased to be able to stand and speak to Bill 29, to speak about education in the broadest sense as well. I think other members have mentioned, as well as our spokesperson for education, that this bill was tabled on the last day of the spring session back in May.

I have to say that given this government’s track record on education, I don’t think it’ll be any surprise to anyone that we wondered what on earth the government was going to do to education now. When this bill was tabled, given this government’s track record and, in fact, given this Premier’s track record, we were understandably concerned. It’s not an unreasonable response to be worried about where this government is going to be taking education. We certainly have not seen education as a priority or as a mandate, front and centre, from this government, so it was very concerning when we saw this bill come forward.

I think the public certainly expected, given this government, that education might have been a priority back in 2005. I’ll just take us back for a few minutes to think about the great golden goals that were brought in by former Premier Gordon Campbell. He announced, you’ll remember, five goals for a golden decade — great goals for a golden decade.

Number 1 of those goals was making B.C. the most educated and literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010.

R. Fleming: Bar none.

C. James: My colleague, our spokesperson, reminds me — bar none.

When you take a look at that great golden goal, I certainly expected that we would see education as a priority. I certainly would support seeing education as a priority. As I said, given the work that I’ve done, given the priority that I believe education should be, I certainly thought that that might be a positive step.

Well, what we actually saw…. The results of that were just the opposite. I speak about this because it gives you the reason that we were concerned about Bill 29 coming forward, the reason we were worried about what it
[ Page 9198 ]
might bring to the education system. The first thing the government did was change that goal to actually reach its conclusion in 2015. They moved it. It was supposed to be 2010; they moved it to 2015. Now it’s nowhere to be found, so I’m guessing it has dropped off the map.

It wasn’t simply that they ignored the goal to make education important. It was the fact that, instead, they decided to make education a political football in this province. That’s really what this government decided to do. In fact, it was this Premier’s Education Minister who decided that picking a fight with teachers, the critical individuals in front of our children every single day in classrooms, was the best way to try and accomplish things in education.

It really was astounding to see the direction that that took. Whether it was ripping up contracts, whether it was all of the resources and the energy that were spent on fighting legal fights instead of focusing on education or whether it was the mistrust and the lack of respect that this government showed to the people who work in the education system, relationships were damaged. Relationships were damaged by this government who had said that education was going to be important to them.

[1555]

They did just the opposite. We continued to see cuts when it came to funding for education. We saw the downloading of costs onto school boards, and that has continued. That’s still here today. We may be talking about Bill 29 and the issues around property tax, but in fact the real issues in education are the resources that have been squeezed and squeezed out of the system. It’s made it more and more difficult for the people who work in the system to do the job for the reason they got into teaching in the first place: because they love helping kids learn and opening up those windows of opportunity for those children.

Yet we see downloading of costs — MSP, hydro, unfunded contracts, you name it. That’s the kind of direction that we’ve seen come down. We also saw during that time period changes in the funding formula. Were there changes made that made sense when it came to education policy or that made sense to help teachers in the classrooms or that made sense to help kids learn? No. In fact, those funding formula changes were made simply to be able to claw money back out of the system. They impacted everything from non-enrolling teachers…. For people who aren’t sure, that’s everything from librarians to learning-assistance teachers to music teachers to fine arts teachers to sports teachers — all of those individuals in the classroom.

It also had a huge impact on rural school districts. Although we talk in Bill 29 about rural areas and municipalities…. In fact, if you really want to talk about the issues facing education in rural communities, you talk about the funding formula and the challenges that that made when they took away the per-school funding and the impact that had on individual districts who ended up closing schools because the funding wasn’t there to be able to support what often were the only options there for individual parents and for individual communities.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

We’re having a changing of the guard. Welcome to the new Deputy Speaker in the chair. I will do my best to stick to Bill 29 and make sure that I’m not the first person who’s called out by the new Deputy Speaker. I will do my best.

Continuing on with what we’ve seen in education. Not only did we see the changes in the funding formula, the challenges that that created; we also have seen a huge increase in class sizes, a huge lack of support for kids with special needs. Again, we know the impact that that has on the classroom and on the teachers and, most importantly, on the students in the classroom.

We also saw this government spend scarce resources on information systems. How many remember BCeSIS — $90 million, completely thrown out? The money was completely wasted. Think of what $90 million could have done in the education system. Think of what $90 million could have done in the classroom for teachers. Instead, that’s gone.

We have a new information system that is also having challenges, which is very worrisome for the education system. While we’re debating Bill 29, while we’re talking about property taxes, we also need to take a look at the context of the education system and the challenges that we’re seeing in the system.

Just in the last year, we saw the Minister of Education bring in a bill that gives the ability for the minister to override any decisions of boards of education that he decides are going in a direction he doesn’t like. The irony of all of that is that the Minister of Education actually had just signed a protocol with boards of education saying we will work in partnership. This is a co-governance system. Co-governance, when the minister brought in a piece of legislation that in fact gave the ability for the minister to override board decisions without having any discussions with the board. How is that co-governance?

We have also seen cuts just this last year, as my colleague also talked about. Fifty million dollars in cuts come still in administration costs for school boards who, when you look at the facts, have some of the lowest administration costs across this province.

Yet again, no discussion with boards, no conversation about those challenges. Given all of that, given that context, given this government’s track record on education, I think it’s no surprise that we were suspicious of a bill related to education that came in on the last day of the session in May. I think it would no surprise to anyone.

[1600]

I think what strikes me the most about this bill is what it is not. As others have said, and as the speaker before
[ Page 9199 ]
me said, this is simply cleaning up. This bill brings forward, simply, a cleanup. Those are the member’s words. It doesn’t change things in education. It doesn’t add resources. It doesn’t take away resources. It maintains the status quo on school property taxes for independent and public schools and provides some consistency between the Vancouver Charter and other municipalities.

When I say what it is not, I think it’s important to recognize that Bill 29 doesn’t bring forward any of those important, critical issues that need to be talked about in education, that really need to be discussed. I would have been thrilled to see us spend a few days in this Legislature talking about the importance of education, having a real discussion on education — to talk about the role of education when it comes to building a strong economy; to talk about the role of education when it comes to building healthy, safe, productive communities and strong, engaged citizens.

Education is at the core of all of those things. It’s the basis of opportunity for all. Now, given the poverty numbers in this province, and given the rising inequality, what a wonderful opportunity it would have been to bring forward a piece of legislation that actually would have given us a chance to have that important discussion — not simply just clearing things up and looking at how we address something that has not been a problem, but, in fact, to talk about something that is real and pressing and there every day in the education system.

We have a new curriculum coming forward, a positive direction created by the partners in the education system. People have been talking about the need for resources to ensure its success. Well, I lived, as others have, through the Year 2000 implementation. Again, a curriculum was brought forward, developed by people in the system — some wonderful, amazing, extraordinary things in that curriculum — that wasn’t implemented well. That created all kinds of challenges.

Wouldn’t it have been amazing if, instead of looking at the issues that we’re looking at in Bill 29 — very simple, straightforward, not-concrete changes to the education system — we talked about the new curriculum and what it meant, what it could look like, what opportunities will be there to provide resources for that curriculum?

Graduation rates for aboriginal students. I don’t think there’s anyone in this Legislature who would say that there’s success for aboriginal students. We’re seeing improvements, but how can we see further improvements? How can we provide the opportunity for aboriginal students to graduate at the same rate that all students graduate? Wouldn’t that be amazing, to have that kind of conversation in this Legislature?

Teacher education. Again, with the new curriculum coming in, what’s the discussion going on with the universities about teacher education and how the new curriculum is going to match up with teacher education? I hear often from teachers that they feel they haven’t had the opportunity to learn enough about kids with special needs and other challenges. How is the teacher education program matching up with the education of today? Wouldn’t that be amazing?

I sit on the Select Standing Committee on Finance. We are doing hearings right now. We did some around the province. We’re now doing some via teleconference in the Legislature this week, while we’re in the Legislature. We’ve had a number of presentations on education. As other members on this side have said, we did do some consultation on this bill after it was tabled in May. We did have some conversations at UBCM with municipalities to make sure there weren’t any issues raised there.

I do think it’s interesting. We’ve had a number of presentations at the Select Standing Committee on Finance related to education. A number of people have come forward to present on education. We’ve had presentations from boards of education, representatives from the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. We’ve had teachers — the BCTF. We’ve had the Principals and Vice-Principals Association. We’ve had the business officials — it used to be the secretary-treasurers — who’ve come and presented.

It’s interesting to take a look at those presentations and recognize that not one presentation came forward to speak about asking for what Bill 29 has. If you’re looking at priorities, if you’re looking at what would be a priority in education, I would certainly say — based on the feedback that I’ve had since May, based on the feedback that we’ve seen at the Select Standing Committee on Finance — that Bill 29 is not high on the agenda.

[1605]

Making sure you take care of those things, making sure you take care of consistency and making sure you do the housekeeping is fine, but when it comes to priorities for people in the education system, the kinds of things we’ve heard at the Finance Committee talk about the need for stable, predictable funding.

They talk about the need for seismic upgrading. They talk about the need for resources for students with special needs. I’ve heard about the need for support for the new curriculum. I’ve heard people talk about the funding of downloaded costs.

While Bill 29 doesn’t change what exists now, wouldn’t it be amazing if we were spending our time in the Legislature talking about how to strengthen our education system, talking about how to make sure that every child had the opportunity, not talking about things, as I said, that are very straightforward that we can get done?

Where is the real conversation about how to improve education? That’s the kind of conversation I believe the public is looking for, I believe it’s the kind of conversation that parents are looking for, and it’s the kind of conversation that I believe students deserve. It’s the kind of example of leadership when it comes to one of the most critical areas of education.
[ Page 9200 ]

Instead, as I said, we are still talking about things like challenges in the system, downloading of costs, cuts to adult basic education — things that close the door to opportunity.

I will be voting in support of the bill. As other members have said, this is simply clearing things up. This is simply making sure that there is equity there, but I would leave a plea for that real conversation on education.

I would leave a plea for that genuine conversation on how we can strengthen our education system, how we can support the extraordinary people who work in our system, how we can make sure that they get the resources that they need to do the job and how we can make sure that every child has an opportunity in the education system. Surely that’s the goal of everyone in this Legislature.

J. Martin: I am happy to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 29, the Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. This bill ensures that independent schools in municipalities across the province will be treated the same when it comes to property taxation. Expanding what is covered under the mandatory portion of property tax exemptions, as this bill intends to do, will ensure that independent schools will not face increased property taxes.

Currently, property tax exemptions are divided into two categories: mandatory, which only covers a school building and the land directly underneath it; and permissive, which includes the land surrounding a school building.

Well, this bill has been introduced because municipalities are beginning to change their policies with regard to property tax exemptions for independent schools. A couple of jurisdictions have recently changed their policy to deny independent schools the permissive portion, and other city councils have considered following suit.

Independent schools facing increased property taxes may be required to raise fees, cut programs or close. This bill ensures that the facilities an independent school requires to function as a school are not taxed. Facilities that are core to the idea of an independent school include playing fields, playgrounds, athletic facilities, parking lots and more.

This new portion of statutory exemption relies on B.C. Assessment. The independent Crown corporation will decide whether or not a property is reasonably necessary for school purposes. A list of what is considered core to the idea of a school is included in the legislation, and this list will provide guidance to B.C. Assessment. This means the list will provide some certainty to independent schools and municipalities about what is taxable and what is exempt.

Expanding what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemption makes sense, because aren’t the playgrounds, the playing fields and even the parking lots necessary for school purposes? What would a school be without a playground? How could schools and students thrive without playing fields? Imagine a school without kids running around on the playing field.

Sports and other activities provide such a huge benefit to students, and without any athletic facilities or playing fields, students would not be able to participate in team or individual sports. The skills a student learns through sport would be lost without access to athletic facilities.

[1610]

The Federation of Independent School Associations B.C. has estimated that the financial burden to B.C.’s independent schools from denying the permissive portion could be in the range of $5 million to $7 million. This could lead to increasing fees, which transfers the cost onto B.C. families. This could lead to programs being cut, leaving these students at a disadvantage.

We want our students to be the best they can be. We want them to thrive in our economy and their communities, so they have to have the skills to fill jobs in B.C. With this bill, independent schools will now receive the same statutory exemption across the province. This way, we won’t be faced with potentially different treatment depending on the jurisdiction a school is located in.

Thirteen percent of students enrolled in K through 12 in British Columbia attend an independent school. Just think how many schools and how many families could be impacted if each jurisdiction were to decide to deny the permissive portion of the property tax exemption. This government supports choice: choices for parents, choices for students, whether that’s through public or independent schools.

It’s incumbent on us to ensure that all independent schools are treated the same, fairly and equally, throughout the province when it comes to property taxation supporting B.C. families.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack. Sorry I did not recognize you before.

Now I call upon the member for Surrey-Whalley.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your ascension to the role of Deputy Speaker. I’m sure you will serve the Legislature well. I know that some of your family were here in order to see this auspicious occasion. We all wish you well.

I hope the good rulings are not balanced by too many bad rulings, but we will see. I think the general rule is that the Speaker is always right. It’s what I’ve been told.

Anyway, I want to address the bill very briefly. This bill is, really, as some of my colleagues have said, remarkable for what it does not discuss. It’s really a solution in search of a problem. The present practice of municipalities permits them — in other words, it’s permissive, and the previous member talked about that — should they choose, to deny an exemption from municipal taxation to schools of this type. In 99.98 percentage of the cases,
[ Page 9201 ]
municipalities are already giving the exemption. In the research that was done for us, I think there’s an example of only one municipality which had denied the permissive part of the exemption.

Just judging from the comments that the minister himself said — the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Education, who comes fresh from the cabinet…. A Saucerful of Secrets, perhaps? I’m thinking of Pink Floyd songs here because I know the minister played in a Pink Floyd tribute band. A Momentary Lapse of Reason, perhaps? Anyway, I’ve initiated that topic, and I’ll leave it to others to follow up on.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: If Pigs Could Fly. Yes, that’s probably another song that we’ll hear something about.

Just judging from what the Minister of Finance said, this was not a significant issue for municipalities in British Columbia. It confirms a historic practice. Other members who…. Many of us were at UBCM. I was not approached by a single member of a single council to lobby me on this particular issue. Now, I did talk to a lot of people too, so I take it that this is really not an issue.

One can appreciate that the government may wish, for symbolic reasons, to bring this legislation forward. But as I said, nothing will really change when this bill passes, as it certainly will.

Many of us, as the member for Skeena said, have private schools or independent schools in our ridings. In my riding, I have Our Lady of Good Counsel; I have Iqra Islamic School; I have a Khalsa school — all of whom have students whose parents choose to send them there, largely because they wish their children to receive, along with their other aspects of their education, some religious instruction.

[1615]

Those schools are an integral part of the community. I don’t think there’s really much dispute about how they are taxed — certainly not in Surrey, which is one of the biggest municipalities by population in the province. It’s never an issue that has arisen in Surrey. I’ve never been approached by anyone representing any of those schools about that issue either. This issue is not something that is really top of mind or even sort of No. 10 on anyone’s list in particular.

I suppose what is essential to look at here — as the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has said — is what isn’t being discussed when it comes to our education system. A vital, strong, public education system, supplemented by independent schools in the case of British Columbia, is important to our future as a society and to our growth — not only as individual citizens but to our economic well-being and our future as well.

I spent a number of years on the legislative Finance Committee. That is generally a fairly good opportunity to take the temperature of the concerns that people in the province have about a number of topics. When the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill reports that the concerns about public education that are raised before her committee are stable and predictable funding, seismic upgrade….

We know from the Auditor General that the government is well past some of the promised deadlines on seismic upgrading and has extended the program out into the future, although I think the member for Comox Valley did issue some self-congratulatory message this morning about a single school in his riding. But there are many, many more equally deserving schools and equally deserving parents and students throughout the province. So I’m sure it’s only coincidence that he mentioned that this morning.

This is an issue that preoccupies educational professionals. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has mentioned special needs students — clearly, a major challenge in class composition. If we genuinely believe in equality of opportunity and our schools to present those kinds of opportunities to differently abled students, proper and appropriate resources for special needs students in order that they can integrate and achieve along with other students are really a vital part of the kind of future that we have for ourselves here in British Columbia.

It was, of course, Premier Campbell who in his five great goals did say that his goal was to create the best jurisdiction for those who were differently abled — I think the best jurisdiction in North America in that respect. That goal seems to have, perhaps, fallen off the table or have been forgotten, as he left office and another group of leaders have assumed control of the B.C. Liberal Party. It was still a worthy goal and one that I think the public, when reminded of it or when asked to support it, would support. But in order to meet that challenge, our education system is really vitally important in meeting those goals.

The other aspect of funding that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill mentioned in her canvass of issues that arose during the course of the Finance Committee is the funding of downloaded costs. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the education spokesperson on this side of the House, also mentioned the promise at the time that the collective agreement was concluded that the collective agreement would be fully funded. Yet that promise has not been kept.

In fact, school boards have been obliged — because they are obliged to balance their budget — to reduce their spending. That is, allegedly, in the government’s view, a very easy task. In reality, it’s a very difficult task. As long-standing member of the Surrey school board Laurae McNally said: “Oh, the low-hanging fruit was picked a long time ago, and the trees have been chopped down.”

[1620]

It’s just not as easy as some blithe spirits over in the department of finance seem to think, about ways that
[ Page 9202 ]
those can be achieved. Indeed, though, with capable leadership….

In Surrey, we have a very proficient and excellent superintendent, Jordan Tinney. They have been able to find some savings, but it’s definitely not an easy challenge. In Surrey, the district has the lowest percentage of administrative cost to the total budget of any district in the province. Now, some of that is achieved by economies of scale by having the biggest school district as well. Nonetheless, these challenges are not easy ones to meet.

In order that we have the kind of public education system that we strive for, these are issues that should be debated in the Legislature. There’s an opportunity. We have a session. We have six or seven weeks. We’re hearing some rumours about a lack of a substantive legislative agenda, but we’ll see what comes.

Today has not been a particularly fulsome day when it comes to legislative heft. The government is correcting one of its most obvious mistakes: the implementation of the Premier’s campaign promise when she ran for the leadership of the party about creating an Auditor General for Local Government. That has been a botched job from the start.

One would think it would be better simply to roll it into the legislative office of the Auditor General of British Columbia and let them start over and let the capable Auditor General of British Columbia assume conduct of those kinds of audits. That is, apparently, not to be. We are not going to resile that far from the Premier’s leadership promise, which I suppose is something that the Premier is concerned about. It doesn’t particularly make good sense, and the history of that office would suggest it doesn’t.

This bill is something that we support. It’s a solution in search of a problem. There isn’t a problem. No one has raised it.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I hear the member for Surrey-Panorama opining that it is a problem. Perhaps he’ll join debate and let us know. I was only able to….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: As the member for Port Coquitlam points out, the member speaking — or at least interjecting from the other side, the Liberal member — was a member of Surrey council for some 25 years. Perhaps he will tell us that it was Surrey council that wanted to impose taxes upon independent schools in Surrey. Maybe that’s what he’s going to say. I look forward to him explaining to us why he thinks it’s such a threat for municipalities, given that he spent 25 years on a municipal council.

I wasn’t aware of that, but I’m sure he knows better. Maybe there were some closed council meetings where this issue was mooted. Maybe there were legal opinions received. Surely, he can enlighten us when his time comes, should he dare to enter the debate, if his House Leader lets him.

With that, thank you very much for the opportunity to address this bill.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m delighted to get up and speak in support of the bill. I do it from both the lens of a former municipal mayor and councillor, a school trustee many years ago and now as the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, having had a small part to play in this government’s work towards stability in the education system prior to my assuming this portfolio.

This issue…. I think that what the members opposite perhaps haven’t had is the benefit of the work of the independent school association on issues that are important to them as it relates to their members and their ability to maintain a very robust and healthy independent school system.

[1625]

It’s been obvious that this government has said that choice for parents and providing that choice is a fundamental principle that has been in place for over 25 years in this province, and we intend to maintain that.

I’ve heard the speakers opposite talk about the fact that…. “What is the issue here? What’s the problem?” There is no groundswell across local governments to claim additional taxes against independent schools other than the current statutory requirements. But having been on the executive of UBCM in the past, having sat at a local council table where members of my council at that time said: “As we look at managing our budget challenges as a local government….”

One of the areas every year…. We looked at permissive tax exemptions, and every year discussion came around to charging taxes on properties other than the statutory requirement for independent schools. As a matter of fact, there have been discussions, I know, about churches and other organizations that currently, traditionally, have received permissive tax exemptions.

When this issue was brought to our attention over the last number of years, even prior to my becoming a member of the government…. I know that this discussion has gone on. The independent school association has clearly asked the government to look at all of the acts pertaining to taxation as they relate to the independent schools and asked for that mandatory exemption to be included in those acts that are pertinent to independent schools as it relates to their properties.

What this bill does do is take that reality that’s been in place…. I agree with the members opposite. Most of the councils in this province have continued to provide that permissive tax exemption, but it is not a requirement. I even remember, at the council table, members of my council saying: “Well, do we have to give this exemption
[ Page 9203 ]
to independent schools?” And the answer is: “No, you don’t, if you choose not to do it.”

That becomes a political decision at council tables, dependent on the number of independent schools that might be in their jurisdiction, and also one that becomes quite political in terms of their decision-making as it relates to independent schools.

I know that local governments and various members of local governments have had that debate. Thankfully, many of them have not chosen to change that, have continued to provide that permissive tax exemption, but there are two communities that have chosen not to provide that permissive tax exemption. That is why the Minister of Finance introduced the bill in the spring, and during the time since then, we have been willing to have discussions. I know that at UBCM there have been limited discussions.

But the bottom line is there hasn’t been a groundswell of negative response from local governments that this bill is not appropriate, and they do support it. And I think the proof is in the fact that there hasn’t been a lot of response that this is ill-conceived or it shouldn’t be done.

I appreciate the fact that the members opposite are taking that position politically. I think they understand the consequences of standing up against this. But I also think it’s really important to recognize that this is done in an effort to be fair, to see the difference between the Vancouver Charter, the School Act as it relates to independent schools, and the Community Charter — to bring those in line to make sure that we treat everybody the same way.

As I’ve said, this doesn’t create a new exemption. It simply puts into legislation and all of the acts that are affected…. Our government, as I said, supports the choice for students and their parents, whether that’s through public schools or independent schools.

[1630]

All the members of this House know that a parent who chooses to send their student to an independent school already is making a significant financial decision for that choice. They pay 100 percent school taxes in their municipal taxes, but they clearly know that they are going to be paying more in order to send their students.

I think anything we can do as government to ensure that the independent schools are kept whole, that they’re able to operate and that they don’t need to unnecessarily increase their fees, that’s an appropriate response.

Under the independent schools, the tax regime is somewhat complicated. That’s why taking it and putting it under this new legislation ensures the consistency between the Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter and the Independent School Act.

When we look at it…. One of the questions that I was asked at UBCM by someone from local government was: “What about the case of an independent school that has property that also is used for other purposes?” For example, a for-profit daycare centre that might be part of the property — is that now going to be exempted? Indeed, it’s not.

The act is very clear. The implementation will be for the independent school and its purposes — their playgrounds, fields, parking lots that are directly attendant to the school and its operations.

I know of an independent school in my former community that actually has a residential development as part of their overall property. Of course, that would still be charged the appropriate taxes by the local community, and those wouldn’t be exempted. It’s important that everyone understands that this is solely for the school and the school purposes, and those will be clearly defined.

When the two communities that did make a decision to start charging for those properties that had previously been exempted under the permissive tax, it was obvious to the independent school association and to this government that there was some communities who were looking at that.

I understand that they are always looking for ways to ensure that they can maintain their budget and collect the appropriate taxes. But it clearly sent a signal that this could become a trend, and the key word there is “could be.” Therefore, it was felt that now is the time to change the legislation to make sure that we fit into the other actions that we have.

The same thing happens under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. Independent schools are provided both statutory and exemptions for the other properties simply because it is the Minister of Finance who makes those determinations. Again, this will bring everything into line with that.

It’s obvious to us that, as we look at legislation — and I think the members opposite would agree — whenever we can find ways to streamline practices and policies within government, we should be doing that, and we should be moving towards bringing things into compliance so that there is consistency and no ambiguity.

I think this act will clearly say to newly elected members of council, when they’re looking at their permissive tax exemptions, that we remove one thing that I know personally there has been a lot of debate on.

The Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C., in the time that I was Education Minister, repeatedly asked the government to move in this area and to ensure that we make the change. They said clearly that they felt it was an inequity for their member schools, and they asked us to take this action.

I felt that it was appropriate when the Minister of Finance first tabled this bill to give the time until now to provide opportunity to UBCM and its member local governments to provide any reaction to that. As I’ve said, it was obvious to me at UBCM in the lack of discussion about it that there is general support for us moving ahead.

[1635]

We do have a statutory duty to consult with UBCM, and we did. We sent the bill to them — the intent of the bill. Again, we have had no formal response that would suggest to us that UBCM has any concerns, so I think we can be assured, in this House, that what we’re doing is the appropriate thing.

Some of the technical facts about the bill that I think are important, in having been around the table talking about this, are that the property that is going to be added, as I’ve said already, is what is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the independent school. That is something that, as I said, is directly attributed to what the school requires for their playing fields and all of the other activities. It will ensure that the facilities an independent school requires are not taxed.

It will also make sure that the new portion of the statutory exemption relies on the B.C. Assessment Authority to define that with the independent school and the independent aspect of the B.C. Assessment Authority. They will determine which portions.

There are properties that I am aware of where there are some other additional elements on that property that need to be reviewed by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Of course, they fall under my ministry responsibilities, and we will make sure that they provide the proper evaluation of those properties.

The list of things that are core to the idea of independent schools — the same as it is in public schools and rural schools — includes playing fields, playgrounds, athletic facilities, student facilities, administrative and parking lots.

Now, it is my clear understanding that there have been public schools in the province that have had dormitories because they bring students from very disparate communities into one location. One that I can think of — my own mother was the matron at the North Island high school, in their dormitory, for many years. She was an amazing woman who worked very hard to make sure that those students did what they were supposed to do. That’s what a matron does.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: My mother did that with me — as the member opposite said: “Look what a great job she did with me” — and she did the same for all the students up there as well.

The other thing that’s important — I’ve said this, and I think it bears repeating for the record — is that municipalities and, in rural areas, the province can still permissively exempt land that is not considered reasonably necessary for the purpose of the school. Each one of those will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The eligibility test for the independent schools, of course, will remain the same. There is no difference that is being contemplated in this in terms of eligibility for an independent school to operate as such. An example might be that a for-profit school which is deemed to be independent would not qualify for the exemption, and of course, this will not change with this legislation. We’re ensuring that it is solely independent schools that provide the K-to-12 education for students throughout the province.

We’re not proposing that this bill is going to raise or maintain revenue but I think make the change that’s necessary for independent schools so when the municipalities in the past granted the exemption, they really will not be negatively impacted. The two communities that did remove their permissive tax exemption, of course, are going to be faced with the fact that they’re going to have to reverse that under this act when it passes, if it passes, through the House.

The other one that I think is important to talk about is the impact on First Nations. B.C. has real property tax coordination agreements with taxing treaty First Nations and the Nisga’a Nation. Under these agreements, the treaty nations can only tax non-members if they follow the tax exemptions found in the Community Charter.

[1640]

Again, this act reflects those other agreements that are in place and the agreements with taxing treaty First Nations in B.C. — must notify them of proposed changes to B.C. law which would require changes in the First Nations law. And again, for the Nisga’a Nation, this will involve negotiation and amendment of their agreement to include the new provision.

I think this is being done in a very positive and forward-moving fashion, and I know that the independent school association is very much looking forward to giving their members the assurity that a trend that was started by two communities is not going to continue and that they will be kept whole.

With that, needless to say, I support the bill, and I now finish my comments.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in support of Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act. My riding is particularly interesting in that there are presently six…. Well, there are five high schools now, but after the election boundaries are redefined, there’ll be six high schools. Three of them are public schools, and three of them are independent schools. Oak Bay, Lambrick, Mount Doug — public schools. St. Michaels and Maria Montessori are presently in the riding and independent schools. Glenlyon Norfolk, soon to be in the riding, as well, is another independent school.

We have much to be proud of, of our education system in British Columbia. Despite what some might have said, Canada ranks at the very top, internationally, in the program for international student assessment scores, particularly in the area of sciences and reading. If we look at the 2012 science rankings, worldwide, No. 1 was Shanghai, China. No. 2, Hong Kong, China. No.
[ Page 9205 ]
3, Singapore. No. 4, Japan. No. 5, Finland. And No. 6, British Columbia.

Now, when you compare that to 2003, in fact, two of those — Shanghai and Singapore — were not part of the 2003 assessment. So in essence, British Columbia would have been ranked No. 4, worldwide, in terms of science achievement, whereas in 2003, British Columbia was ranked No. 6. So we have much to be proud of in British Columbia with respect to our science education.

The same is true with our language arts. In 2003, No. 1 in the world was Finland. Alberta was No. 2, and British Columbia, No. 3. Since 2002, a number of other jurisdictions have participated in the international PISA. So we see Shanghai and Singapore moving up. British Columbia dropped to No. 6, which would have been fifth if you counted other jurisdictions that weren’t there.

But what is really important to note is how it did relative to other provinces in Canada and the much-touted Finnish education system. I’ll come to Finland in a second, because in 2003, Finland ranked No. 1 in science, No. 3 in mathematics and No. 1 in reading. British Columbia was sixth in science, fifth in mathematics and third in reading.

Now, what’s indicative of a government that has somewhat lost touch with developing advancements in education, for reasons unknown to anybody, the B.C. government sent a young person to Finland to study the Finnish system. I understand that if you’re looking at the 2003 PISA assessments, you might want to understand the Finnish system. But in 2012, British Columbia was above Finland in mathematics, was above Finland in reading and was tied, statistically so, in science. There’s much to be proud of about our education system in British Columbia, and we do not need to study the Finnish system to find that out.

We are the top-ranked province in Canada, in terms of science education as well as reading, and yet that was not the case in 2003. Alberta was the top-ranked province in all three areas covered by PISA. But there is one area that B.C. does have some trouble with.

[1645]

I would argue this has nothing to do with the quality of our teachers in British Columbia but, rather, with the quality of the means and the ways they’re being trained to teach mathematics. Mathematics is the one subject where B.C. has dropped, relative to other jurisdictions, in a move that has moved mathematics from learning the times tables by rote memorizing — learning by memorization, a critical aspect of learning mathematics — and moving into trying to understand what that means. You should know that seven times eight is 56, right off the bat. That’s a critical building block. But you shouldn’t necessarily have to know in grade 3 that….

M. Farnworth: Nine times seven?

A. Weaver: Sixty-three, and nine times nine is 81.

But today in school you’re not taught nine times seven is 63. You’re taught that nine times seven is ten times seven minus one times seven. Now, that’s an abstract idea that many people in elementary education simply can’t grasp. If you want to know why we’re going down in maths, you have only to look at the way our teachers are being trained in the universities, not the quality of the teachers themselves. Apart from mathematics, we rank at the very top internationally.

I will not listen to those who bemoan the state of our education system in B.C. We rank second to no other province in terms of quality, and we’re one of the top nations internationally and certainly the top nation in the western hemisphere.

What does that have to do with the bill? Well, it has to do with treating independent schools the same as public schools. Presently, the contents of this bill are actually in play in the Vancouver Charter already. The Vancouver Charter is quite specific in terms of what can or cannot be included in property taxation. This bill essentially says to the rest of the province that we’re going to be consistent. Whether you be in Victoria, Prince George, Kelowna, whether you be in Fernie, whether you be in Haida Gwaii, Prince Rupert, schools will be treated one and the same in terms of their property taxation.

Many people often don’t realize that we’ve had independent schools in Canada since the 17th century when the first Catholic schools were established in Quebec. In many jurisdictions, we have publicly funded school boards that fall along denominational lines. In Ontario and Alberta, for example, we have Catholic school boards and we have non-Catholic school boards. They’re both public school systems that go back to Confederation days. Here in B.C., we would call Catholic schools independent schools, where in other provinces, they’re considered part of the public system.

We have other potential problems which exist presently. Let’s suppose right now that we have a Catholic school on church property. How does that fall within the property taxation realm? Is it a church? Is it an independent school? Is it in the Catholic school board? No. This needs to be cleared up. While this bill is very short in terms of length, it’s important in terms of substance, because it actually closes a lot of potential problems that could create a potpourri of odd property taxations across the province.

One of the things that I support in this bill is the fact that it does not apply to things like endowment lands, things like houses for staff, for example, if there may be some independent schools that provide housing for their teachers. There may be some other independent schools that have large endowment lands. These are not being covered under this legislation. It’s simply the school and that which is typically used in school.

There are benefits for that. A school in my riding, Glenlyon — well, soon to be my riding; half the school
[ Page 9206 ]
is in my riding — for example, has a lovely AstroTurf field that is used by the local community in partnership, the Bays United soccer community. They have a public relationship with the independent school, yet there is a potential — it’s not right now — for that to be taxed, even though the public is benefiting from this field that is used by all.

[1650]

In summary, then, first off, I’d like to recognize that we do have an outstanding education system. It does not help our education system when we continue to bemoan the problems in it instead of celebrating the successes in it. Sure, there are problems in our education system. There are problems in everything around us. But we will not move this education system forward if all we do is fixate on the negative that’s in it.

Secondly, I think fairness is critical. This bill provides fairness, recognizing that there are other provinces where independent schools, like the Catholic system, are actually part of the public system, whereas in B.C. we’ve never had Catholic school boards. Finally, it does not exclude some of the extraneous properties attached with an independent school. Those will be subject to municipal taxes.

With that, I thank you for your time. I’m only sad that the new Minister of Education is no longer sitting beside me but across the hall. I do appreciate your office, hon. Speaker, and of those House Leaders, in preparing me here in the Legislature for two upcoming by-elections so that my colleagues can sit beside me.

M. Dalton: It’s good to be here in support of Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act. It really is important legislation. I know that I have heard comments from the opposition side that it’s inconsequential, that almost nothing is different and that it’s almost unbelievable that it’s on the legislative agenda, but I certainly would beg to differ on this. This is important legislation for B.C.’s 80,000 independent school students and over 350 schools.

There are half a dozen independent schools in the communities I represent in Maple Ridge and Mission. They are located pretty much, I’m sure, in every riding of the members here. For several years I worked closely with independent schools in British Columbia, first as a liaison to the Minister of Education to independent schools, then as a parliamentary secretary.

I had the opportunity to visit some 80 schools across the province and to meet, firsthand, teachers and students in the schools and was very impressed with what’s happening in the schools in terms of education and results — very strong academic results and committed teachers. That doesn’t take away from the great results and excellent calibre of education at our public schools.

Critics of independent schools say that it’s only for students from well-heeled families and that they shouldn’t be getting a dime of public funding. But that’s not what I saw, as far as the families that were sending their kids to these schools. Now there are certainly some university prep schools that are more expensive to attend, but the majority of the independent schools are smaller, very often in older facilities — surplus schools that are no longer used by the school districts.

Average income families are sacrificing. They take on extra jobs, forgoing a vacation and just making that commitment to their kids. They also have to pay for all the operational costs. The building upgrades and improvements come from families. I know that in the Vancouver Catholic school district there are quite a number of schools. They are older schools, and they have to go through seismic upgrades. That’s going to be costing tens of millions of dollars, and this comes from parents.

I’ve mentioned this before in the Legislature. I remember visiting one school up north, an independent school, where the bell stopped functioning, so they had to go with a handbell. For most of the school year they were out ringing the bell at the end of recess and lunch, until a parent came and paid a couple thousand dollars just to help get that fixed. Those extra costs are borne by parents.

Why do I mention this? It’s because the extra costs go directly to families who are already making significant sacrifices. The taxation by certain municipalities — there are a couple that have been mentioned, and there were others that were seriously considering this — would have gone directly to parents. And it threatened or could threaten the viability of a number of these schools. This is contrary to government’s position on parental choice in education.

[1655]

I am glad to hear that both sides of the House are planning on supporting this bill. This bill is also about fairness. Public schools do not pay taxes on their schools, on playing fields, parking lots and playgrounds, by legislation, and we’re extending the same principle to independent schools. It is about maintaining a 50-year tradition, which is, essentially, the municipalities allowing permissive taxation exemption to independent schools. That’s been very positive, but because of a couple of the communities now starting to tax, this sets a precedent. Really, this legislation is about heading things off in the pass before things get out of control and more and more municipalities start to tax these schools.

Right now the legislation doesn’t have an impact on municipalities’ ledger sheets, but that might not be the case in a few years. So this legislation protects an important sector of the B.C. education system. That’s good for tens of thousands of families, and it’s good for British Columbia. I hope all members will be supporting it.

Deputy Speaker: Now I recognize the member for Surrey-Newton.
[ Page 9207 ]

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Congratulations on your new position.

At the same time, I would begin by congratulating the new minister as well.

When I look at the first day back, it’s always good to be back. When I looked at the agenda, the first thing on the agenda was Bill 29. You know what? My natural reaction was to oppose Bill 29, because Bill 29 brings those historic memories and puts shivers through my spine. I said, “There’s no way that I would support that Bill 29,” which was brought by the Liberals back then — throwing thousands of lower-paying health care workers on the streets, if you remember that, and by ripping up their collective agreements after saying that they would not rip up their collective agreements.

Nonetheless, looking at the new Bill 29, today’s Bill 29…. I looked at what is asked in here. I rise to support and will speak in favour of this Bill 29, although I might say that this bill is all to do about nothing. You look at it — 230-some municipalities, and none of them exercise a right to tax the properties that are mentioned here that are being exempted by law now, other than two or three who tried.

You would think that you are coming back here, and there are so many important things that you will be discussing for the fall session. Nonetheless, here is the bill that we are talking about. I want to talk about…. There are independent schools — not very many — in Surrey-Newton, but we do have Khalsa School in my constituency. We have a Muslim school, and there are other schools as well.

Khalsa School is one of the major schools, along with the Muslim school. Here in Khalsa School, they have, overall, about six campuses. It is very popular with many, many parents who would see this as an opportunity for their children to maintain their heritage, their religion and their cultural background, by having the children go to Khalsa School. In addition to academic achievements, they also look at the opportunity, when they go to school, to learn about Sikh religion and cultural programs, Punjabi, of course — their language — and Sikh history.

[1700]

It’s popular with many of my constituents. As somebody said earlier here, sometimes the private schools are considered to be schools for those who are well-to-do, but Khalsa School parents are ordinary working people. They send their children to this school by simply making sure that their future generations continue to learn and maintain their cultural values, their heritage, their history about their religion, and this school gives them that opportunity. That’s why I think the bill itself, although it hasn’t been acted upon by the municipalities, taking the opportunity to tax the properties that are outside of the school building and other school-required facilities….

In Surrey, I know that no initiatives have been taken. I know the indication was there that they would start taxing these properties. Nonetheless, this bill will bring some clarity and direction for the municipalities all across the province — what can and cannot be taxed. That’s why I think that it perhaps makes sense to bring some clarity here.

I think the issue that I want to talk about is an issue that hasn’t been talked about. Like I said earlier, you would think that on the first day back in the Legislature here, there are so many important issues that face constituents of every MLA that comes here, in their own minds, in their own different regions — different issues in different areas. None of that is here today.

We started out with Bill 29, which, practically speaking, is doing nothing, because the taxes that were on these private schools or independent schools yesterday will be the same tomorrow after passing this bill. Although I said that the intention, perhaps, is good and it brings some clarity and gives direction to the municipalities, there are more important issues that we need to be talking about.

We should talk about how we support our teachers, give them tools so that they can deliver the top-notch education that our children deserve in their classrooms. We’re not talking about that. We’re not talking about giving tools to parents and to the students who go to school so they have everything that they need in order to achieve the highest of their potential. We’re not talking about that.

Here in Surrey, we should be talking about how we come up with ways to fund new classroom spaces for 7,000 students who are getting their education in portables — 7,000 students — so that they can go and get their education in real classrooms. They deserve nothing less than that, but the government is always mum on that. They always come up with all kinds of lofty slogans, catchy slogans, but nothing to show for it. Soon the new school is built, and there are more portables to support the students, because there isn’t enough space. We’re not talking about that.

We’re not talking about different schools that have staggered shifts for the teachers and the students because there’s no space. We’re not talking about how to eliminate that. That poses real hardship and inconvenience to the parents, because they take one child at one time and they take another child at a different time. It just adds extra inconvenience and hardship to those parents.

We’re not talking about how we expand public transportation to Surrey. We have, on a per-capita basis, about half of the service south of the Fraser as compared to Vancouver and Richmond. Vancouver and Richmond also need improvement. We’re not talking about some of those key issues that we need to talk about.

[1705]

We’re not talking about how we put together a comprehensive and really innovative way to fight those gangs that have created such havoc for many, or almost all, of the citizens of Surrey, where people feel that they are under siege, so that we can bring some order on
[ Page 9208 ]
our streets. We’re not talking about that. That’s what we should be talking about.

We’re not talking about how we turn around our forest industry so that we can add more value and create more jobs with a limited supply of timber that we have in the Interior. We’re not talking about how we utilize the access of the logs available on the coast, rather than ship them raw. How do we make them available to our local manufacturers so that they can be running at full capacity, creating more jobs and adding more value? We’re not talking about that either.

We’re not talking about all the mismanagement that is continuing on, where it’s costing taxpayers, every day, extra dollars that are basically wasted on some of the mismanagement initiatives that this government has taken. For example, the Port Mann Bridge. A $100 million loss last year, and who’s going to pay for that? Inevitably, taxpayers south of the Fraser will be asked to pay for it with longer or higher tolls. That’s what’s going to end up. We’re not talking about that.

We’re not talking about the Golden Ears Bridge, where taxpayers are paying $40 million every year for traffic that is not even there. We’re not talking about that. How do we cut the limited amount of resources available so that those resources can be diverted to improve our public transportation rather than throwing it in a hole, as is the case today.

There are so many important issues to talk about, but the government is talking about something that is, practically speaking, nothing today — just to keep everyone busy, I guess. If this is things to come in the next six or seven weeks, I think these will be a long six or seven weeks of talking about something that is nothing and talking about issues other than the real issues that our constituents sent us here to talk about on their behalf.

As I said, the bill will bring some clarity, yes. The bill will bring some direction to the municipalities. But since 2012, only four municipalities have considered removing permissive tax exemptions on independent schools. Only four out of 230-something. Two were eventually granted exemptions. There wasn’t a huge demand, a huge danger or risk that somebody is out there looking at taxing the properties that haven’t been taxed today.

I think this government has no more ideas left, if this is a sign of the future six weeks. No more new ideas. They just want to bring issues here that are just to keep us busy.

We want to talk about some real issues that face our constituents, important issues that our constituents are really worried about on a daily basis. They are worried about their children and their education. We’re not talking about that. We have post-secondary education. South of the Fraser, the participation rate is the lowest in all of B.C., even when you compare that with the rest of the Lower Mainland — 11 percent compared to 24 percent. We’re not talking about that.

How do we add more spaces to post-secondary education so that the students south of the Fraser have an institution to go to and utilize their skills, learn new skills and are prepared to compete with the rest of the world in a new, innovative economy? We’re not talking about all of that.

I think it’s a disappointment that on the first day back we are talking about nothing. I think that’s something that is really concerning.

I’m really happy that I was able to speak on this bill, and I will support this bill. But I hope that soon the government realizes that we need to start to talk about some real issues facing British Columbians.

[1710]

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

L. Throness: Thank you, and first, allow me to offer my congratulations to you on your new post as Deputy Speaker. You now have the unenviable task of listening to every speech that comes through the House. You know, you might regret having said yes at some point. But that’s great news.

It’s my pleasure to stand and speak in support of Bill 29, with the fascinating title of Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act. I have the pleasure of having a number of independent schools in my riding. I can list them. They are Agassiz Christian School; Timothy Christian School in Rosedale; Cheam Christian School, also in Rosedale; and Unity Christian School in Popkum. There are other independent schools just outside of my riding in Chilliwack. There are quite a number of independent schools in my riding, and I’m very proud to serve them.

I’ve found, in visiting these schools, that they are very progressive places. I visit both public and independent schools in my riding. I talk to students. I teach classes in these schools. When I compare the independent schools with the public schools, I really find that they are comparable in every way.

The facilities in independent schools are excellent. Their teachers are first-rate. The students are happy and well-behaved. They’re disciplined. They’re obviously learning. They participate in class discussions.

In the last independent school that I was in, they had just held class elections, and they had parties. The parties had names like “the most excellent class in the school” party. They would have a platform of how they were going to make their class the most excellent class in the school, and they had elections about that. It was refreshing. They were engaging in politics and learning about politics in a non-partisan way. I thought the whole thing was delightful.

I want to add something. In just about every class in the independent schools I’ve attended, there are students with disabilities. Some people accuse the independent schools of picking and choosing students — choosing
[ Page 9209 ]
students who have no disabilities and avoiding them. That is simply not true.

Now, I have always been a strong proponent of parental choice. It’s a philosophical position, really. Who has the responsibility to raise a child? Is it the parent who brought the child into the world and loves the child more than anyone else in the world, or is it the state? My philosophy is that it is the parent who has responsibility for that child. The parent has responsibility for the moral and the intellectual and the spiritual development of that child.

Where there are exceptions to that, that’s when the state steps in. We have ministries like the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That’s for situations where the parent cannot or does not fulfil their task. But really, it’s up to the parent as a default position.

I don’t believe in a monolithic education system. People have different belief systems. They are reasonable people in having those different beliefs, and so I believe that parents need to be able to have a choice. When I say choice, they need to have a reasonable choice. It should not be an unreasonable choice. It needs to be an affordable choice. We need to offer that to parents.

Here I would point out that several independent schools in my riding have recently added structural additions to their schools. I think of Cheam Christian, which just held their grand opening of a beautiful new addition to their school. They are raising $4 million for the addition to that school. Unity Christian also just opened an addition. It’s a beautiful school. It’s a fairly new school, but it also just built another addition — that also costing several million dollars.

Who paid for those additions? Is it the taxpayer? No. It is the parents who send their children to that school — and other interested people. Those parents also pay taxes to the public system. But in addition to paying public school taxes, they are paying to send their kids to those independent schools. The state is not responsible to pay for the education of the children in those independent schools. In this way, the independent system subsidizes the public system by hundreds of millions of dollars each year across B.C.

I can further attest that these independent schools are not elite schools. Parents who send their kids to independent schools are not rich. They just make the sacrifices that are necessary to send their kids to the school where they will have an education that corresponds with their own values at home.

[1715]

Although I never attended an independent K-to-12 school myself, I am in full support of those who do. Later in life, I attended an independent college, and I did so at my own expense. I received no help from the state to do that. But I had a choice, and I valued that choice. And I value that choice for the parents in my riding and across B.C. That is an important thing to me.

Now on to the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act — just a few facts about the bill. Bill 29 ensures that independent schools in municipalities across B.C. will be treated the same, will be treated equally, when it comes to property taxation. The property tax exemptions for independent schools found in the Community Charter and the Taxation Act are currently divided into two portions: mandatory, which only covers a school building and the land directly beneath that building, and permissive, which allows land surrounding a school building to be exempted.

This bill simply expands what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemption to include land that is reasonably necessary for school purposes, like playgrounds and playing fields and a parking lot. It’s not about creating a new exemption. Municipalities have adhered to a long-standing policy to provide property tax exemptions to independent schools. It’s not about expanding the exemptions to new schools.

Government left the school qualifications the same in terms of ownership, use and equivalency to public education. But there are two municipalities that have changed their policy with regard to independent schools and have begun denying independent schools the permissive portion of the exemption. Other city councils have considered following suit. I want to say here that municipalities within my riding have not considered this. This, I think, is a credit to them.

Independent schools facing increased property taxes may be required to raise fees, cut programs or close. This act will ensure that the facilities that an independent school requires to function as a school are not taxed. This underscores the philosophical position that our government supports choices for parents and students, whether that’s through public or independent schools.

Independent schools, through this act, will now receive the same statutory exemption across the province, rather than potentially different treatment depending on the jurisdiction a school is located in. Currently, only the buildings and the land directly under those buildings owned by independent school authorities are statutorily exempt from property tax. Historically, municipalities have granted property tax exemptions to additional property owned by independent schools, like playgrounds and sports fields and parking lots, through a bylaw commonly known as permissive exemptions. This amendment would cause these additional properties also to be statutorily exempt.

I would point out that the Federation of Independent School Associations, called FISA, calls the imposition of property tax on additional properties a third tax on parents who choose to send their children to independent schools. They estimate that the financial burden to B.C.’s independent schools of taxing these additional properties would be in the range of $5 million to $7 million across B.C. and could cause them to raise fees and cut programs or close altogether.
[ Page 9210 ]

I want to simply go back to the idea of parental choice. That choice needs to be a reasonable choice. The idea of taxing permissive properties, or permissive exemptions, would reduce that reasonable choice now available to parents. We are simply restoring that idea of reasonable choice to parents.

I want to stand, in conclusion, in support of Bill 29, because it ensures that the choice available to parents will continue to be a reasonable choice so that they can shoulder their responsibility of educating their children and making sure that their children are philosophically and intellectually prepared for the world ahead of them. I support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations on your new role.

I’m pleased to add my comments to the debate on Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. The official opposition has responded to the bill by claiming it’s a double standard. The suggestion is that it is ensuring guaranteed tax breaks on ancillary properties for private schools, when at the same time, government is demanding that public schools continue to look for savings that are no longer possible without affecting the classroom.

[1720]

Still other commentators have called the bill a surprise attack on public schools. I personally don’t agree that a change affecting private schools is, by its nature, an attack on the public system. Certainly, there are different funding models available to the provinces, and not all provinces subsidize private schools in the same manner as does B.C. But a change to one system does not necessarily mean a premeditated attack on the other.

I do suggest, however, that this bill is an attack of another kind. It is, in fact, yet one more government incursion into local government decision-making powers. It is an attack on the traditional authority of our municipal governments. This private school exemption is not a raging issue in British Columbia. It isn’t a raging issue in the media. People aren’t wringing their hands over a fundamental unfairness in how municipal tax structure is managed.

You can count on one hand the number of municipalities that have even entertained the idea of removing these permissive tax exemptions from private schools. In fact, only two municipalities have actually even amended their tax rolls to do so.

Nevertheless, the Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C. lobbied its heart out to tell the government to put a stop to it. The way they told it, the idea that West Vancouver could even consider removing permissive exemptions was outrageous, and the $6,000 more being paid by Aspengrove in Lantzville was made out to be the start of a $5 million wave of property taxes that would affect how their schools did business.

Delta has four independent schools that receive permissive exemptions every year. Council believes that because those schools provide the same service as our public schools, they should have their properties exempted from taxation. To the best of my knowledge, Delta has not entertained a motion to do away with these permissive exemptions. I support council in that decision, and I have been a part, over the years, of that decision. I’m proud of our fine independent schools.

I think this spring’s throne speech might provide some insight into what is going on here. The Lieutenant-Governor sat before us this spring and said government will continue to work with municipal leaders “to control spending, to respect the one taxpayer that pays for all levels of government.” Perhaps that’s part of the government’s motivation behind this bill: the continued reduction of municipal government taxation options.

The removal of yet another municipal authority should come as no surprise. This is the government that tossed out Delta’s bylaw to prevent concrete medical marijuana bunkers from going up on prime ALR land, a government whose project development agreement with Pacific Northwest LNG suggests it may step in if municipalities don’t work out a favourable property tax regime for LNG proponents, a government that has capped port taxes, and that instead of supporting a regional transit strategy in Metro Vancouver, limited how the municipalities could fund that strategy and instructed them to lead a doomed plebiscite.

I believe that Bill 29 represents another disappointing incursion into the powers of our municipal governments. I believe that our local governments should be left with the choice to continue with permissive exemptions or to remove or modify them as they see fit. Municipalities that choose to do away with the exemptions are more than capable of working with their independent schools to ensure they are still able to provide services, including those provided through their ancillary lands and facilities.

For any municipalities that believe that independent schools can play an important role in providing much-needed taxation revenue for municipal services, that should be their choice and remain their right. If the institution losing their exemption is unhappy, they can lobby their local government, organize their own support. They should not run to the provincial government, and the provincial government should certainly not move yet again to curtail municipal taxation authority.

If the one taxpayer, to quote the Lieutenant-Governor, objects to their council’s position, then they can let them know that at the ballot box in 2018. I am disappointed that the government has moved in this direction and consider it, again, as I have said, yet another incursion into municipal authority.
[ Page 9211 ]

S. Hamilton: On behalf of my constituents of Delta North, I’m pleased to address Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. This is not a complicated piece of legislation, and its purpose is in fact quite simple.

[1725]

This bill ensures that independent schools in municipalities across British Columbia will be treated the same when it comes to property taxation. It’s not about creating a new exemption. Municipalities have adhered, as was mentioned before, to long-standing policies to provide property tax exemptions to independent schools.

This bill expands what is covered by the mandatory portion of the exemption, and that is to include land that is reasonably necessary for school purposes, such as playgrounds, playing fields and parking lots. This is not about expanding the exemptions to new schools. Government left the school qualifications the same. There’s nothing different in terms of ownership, use or equivalency to public education.

Let me pause, on a personal note. Many years ago, when my wife and I had children, we had a choice. We were fortunate enough to have a choice. But I’d like to go on record and say that we chose the public school system. I thought it was appropriate for our children to go through public school. Even though we had the opportunity, possibly, to have sent them to an independent school, we chose not to. The public school system did, in fact, serve them exceptionally well and served us exceptionally well. We’ve been fortunate enough to have raised two wonderful daughters, and the public school system helped us play a significant role in doing that.

Recently, some municipalities have changed their policy with regard to independent schools and have begun denying independent schools the permissive portion of the exemption. Unfortunately, other city councillors are considering similar measures. This means independent schools across the province could face increased property taxes and may be required to raise fees, cut programs or even close.

It’s a pretty drastic outlook, and that’s why this government has decided to act. This will ensure that the facilities independent schools require to function as a school are not taxed. The fact is independent schools come in all sorts of sizes. Some are very large; some are very small. Yet regardless of their size, most of them would have great difficulty if, all of a sudden, their overhead increased dramatically.

We believe that independent schools are a very important part of the education fabric in British Columbia. They provide choice, especially for generations of families that may have been raised in an independent school setting and that want to pass along the same tradition to their children.

This bill does not come without a lot of public support. The Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C. has repeatedly requested that legislative amendments to the Independent School Act be considered to address this inequity.

As a government, we believe that playing fields, playgrounds, athletic facilities and various student facilities are an important part of a child’s education. As a matter of fact, most of the important lessons we all learned as children often took place outdoors. Through sport, we learned teamwork. We learned how to be a good sport, how to win as well as how to lose.

We also believe that other facilities related to administration, such as parking lots for staff, all contribute to the shaping of a child’s education. This bill will ensure that all of the facilities that contribute to a child’s education will be tax-exempt. We are talking about getting things right, and this bill is intended to get the correct result for independent schools.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We estimate that if left unchecked, the cumulative effect could reach $15 million to $30 million annually if all municipalities and cities in the province got on board. The vast majority of independent schools would not have the capacity or resources to absorb these costs. This could result in the loss of an alternative that many parents and children in British Columbia have come to rely on.

That’s why I’m supporting this bill. It’s not meant to be punitive. It’s meant to stop something before it starts.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 29.

It’s nice to see you in the chair. It actually means that I’m not going to be able to do the first part of my remarks that I had intended to do, which was to congratulate the member for Burnaby North on his ascension to the role of Deputy Speaker. I had intended to make a few remarks on that.

[1730]

I know, hon. Speaker, that he will be doing as terrific a job as you do on a day-to-day basis in our chamber, ensuring that the debate is listened to and heard by both sides of the House. So, hon. Speaker, while I’m glad to see you in the chair, I must admit I was looking forward to congratulating the member for Burnaby North, but I will take an opportunity to do that at another particular time.

I also think it’s appropriate, though, that you are in the chair at this particular moment because we are debating Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. Many intrepid watchers of this place will know that this is, in fact, the first day of a fall session. Many people at home watching this may wonder: “But isn’t there normally a throne speech that begins a new session? Why are they debating a piece of legisla-
[ Page 9212 ]
tion on the opening day? Doesn’t it have to be tabled and then go on the order paper to be debated?”

Well, actually, it doesn’t. I think it’s important at this particular point in my remarks to remind people of the process that’s currently underway. Much of what I will say will also relate to my remarks and comments on this particular piece of legislation, which is Bill 29.

Why we are able to debate this particular bill today, on the first day of the fall session, is because it was actually tabled during the summer session that we had. It was tabled and not passed at the time. In a session, for example, where you ended the session and a bill was still on the order paper and had not been debated and passed, it would die on the order paper. It would have to be reintroduced and retabled in order to be discussed and debated.

In this particular case, that did not happen. What we did the day after this bill was tabled during the summer was we adjourned the House. We adjourned the House until such time as the Speaker felt it necessary to reconvene the House — which, according to the parliamentary calendar that we operate under, would have been this fall. It would have actually been the first Tuesday in October. But by agreements between the government and the opposition, we were able to agree that we would come back a week early and that we would finish the session a week early.

Because this particular bill had not yet been debated but had been on the order paper the requisite amount of time, the minister responsible for the bill was able to call that bill for debate today. That’s why we are able to debate this particular piece of legislation on the opening day of the fall session. I think it is important for people who are watching just to have an understanding of the procedure that’s taking place — the parliamentary procedure around the introduction, the tabling, the debating of bills.

We will be debating this bill this afternoon, and my expectation is that we will have the second reading vote on this bill today. Once that is done, we will then be able to proceed to what is called committee stage on that bill. That will be a clause-by-clause examination of Bill 29, which is — I know I don’t need to remind members, but for people who may just be joining us on the parliamentary legislative channel — the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

We are at second reading stage, and as I said, that will be dealt with today. But tomorrow we will go to committee stage. Committee stage is important. Second reading is around the principle of the bill, the principle of what this bill does. It’s the opportunity for members to provide commentary as to their support for the principle of the bill or as to how the bill arrived here and perhaps, maybe, what should have also been in the bill or other issues that pertain to it — in discussion, of course, while always referencing Bill 29.

Once that’s done and we have voted, it will then go onto the orders of the day for the next sitting after today, which would be tomorrow. We would then be able to deal with committee stage.

[1735]

Committee stage, as members know and so that people watching at home thoroughly understand, is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill. That means you get to dig down, in an in-depth way, into each section of the bill to have a thorough understanding of its contents and the intentions. It’s an opportunity for the opposition to ask the government questions to make sure and then try and identify that there are no unintended consequences.

I have to say that I am grateful to my colleague across the way, the former Minister of Education, who was able to, in his second reading remarks, answer some questions, I know, of many on this side of the House in terms of exactly what the bill covered, particularly to the relation of residential units and the construction of condominiums, for example, on lands that may be held by private schools. He said that they would not be covered by this bill but would be, in fact, subject to taxation.

That was an important point for the minister to make, and it makes our job easier as legislators in terms of going through committee stage and being able to ask the appropriate questions and getting answers that many people have.

When you look at the bill, there are in fact four sections — actually, three main sections and then section 4, which is that the act comes into force on the date of royal assent. Clearly, the first three sections will be where the bulk of the time is spent in terms of asking questions. Then of course, as you well know, hon. Speaker, a bill only comes into force, even though it may be passed by the House, when royal assent is given. At that point, the intent of the bill and the substance of the bill will come into force.

I think that’s a brief summary of how it is that we’ve arrived at this particular point in the debate and how this bill is here and why we are able to debate it.

With that out of the way, I’m going to go to, I think, the main part of my remarks in terms of the substance of the bill and some of the commentary around the bill.

It is an important piece of legislation. It’s an important piece of legislation in that it deals with issues around taxation as they apply to independent schools in the province of British Columbia — in particular, lands that are currently not defined in the current statutes act, which is actual school buildings. Rather, this applies to lands which can be reasonably assumed to be used for educational purposes.

The school building itself is currently exempt. However, local governments — with the exception of Vancouver, and I’ll touch on that in a moment — currently have the ability to levy taxes on those other ancillary lands — for example, playing fields or parking lots. Or if an independent school had a pool, for example, they would be able to levy taxes on that.
[ Page 9213 ]

The city of Vancouver is not able to do that. It’s governed by the Vancouver Charter, which is separate from the rest of the province in terms of the legislation that covers it. The city of Vancouver is not able to tax, does not have the power to tax those other land uses. It has been that way, if I’m not mistaken, since about 1952 or 1953. But in the rest of the province, local government does have that ability.

I must say, and I say this a little bit tongue in cheek, that it is a little ironic listening to members on the other side talk about choice in our education system, which we do have in this province, and their desire to ensure that that ability to have that choice continues in place. Yet at the same time, by passing this piece of legislation, we are in fact taking away choice from local governments. My colleague from Delta South raised that very issue, and it is a legitimate issue to raise.

Now, this brings me back to my remarks earlier about the bill being tabled in the summer and it being what we would have called…. The term we would use would be an exposure bill, which means to get some public reaction, to get reaction from people affected by the piece of legislation prior to it being debated.

[1740]

I actually think that that is a very positive step and a very positive thing for government to do, and I actually wish that they would do that on more legislation. I think there’s nothing wrong with tabling legislation and saying: “Let’s go out and see what the public thinks. What is the reaction?” I actually think it would improve the legislative process and instil a greater degree of confidence in our legislative process if we were in fact to take more opportunities on doing just that.

I know that is something that the Minister of Finance would probably agree with. I think anything that you can do to increase public participation or increase public feedback in terms of the shaping of legislation is a good thing, which brings me back to my comments about this legislation. I said that yes, it is ensuring, as the government said, that there will be a continuation of choice — or you are not lessening the ability to make a choice.

But there is a reduction in choice for local government because you are taking away a power that they currently have. The reality is, though, that most municipalities have not used that particular piece or that particular power.

In terms of my own community, Port Coquitlam, we have — not a huge number of independent schools, but we do have some. We have a very large Catholic high school, Archbishop Carney, which is in my riding. I have visited many times and have a very good relationship with it.

The council in Port Coquitlam has never considered extending the current existing ability to tax ancillary lands, such as their playing field or arts building or parking lot. They have never considered doing that.

When I broached the issue — because I do think it is important as an MLA to get an understanding of the council’s views on legislation that does affect them — they indicated that they did not have an issue with the particular piece of legislation, Bill 29.

I know the Speaker always wants us to make sure our remarks are pertinent to the bill. It is Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act 2015.

They did not have a problem or an issue with this particular piece of legislation. I know, as the former Minister of Education has stated, that letters were sent out, that communication was sent out to local governments to get their feedback on the particular piece of legislation. The return from that was that there was very little concern, if any.

Certainly, at the recent UBCM conference…. I attended along with many of my colleagues. MLAs from both sides of the House and ministers from the government’s side as well, and the member for Juan de Fuca, were all at UBCM and had an opportunity during the course of the week to discuss issues that mattered to local government, to discuss issues that they felt were important, to find issues that they wanted raised in the House. This was not one of them.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Sorry — nine times six is 54, and I think that that’s an important number to remember. Nine is three times three and six is two times three. Another way at looking at it would be to say that nine times six is 54, and two times three is six, and if you add 54 and six you get 60, which is another way of saying six times ten.

That’s an example of the education system that I received when I was a kid in terms of the learning of math. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was saying how important it is that we have strong foundational skills in our education system, whether it is language arts and English. Reading, writing and arithmetic are important. That’s what our education system is based on. Those are the building blocks of a solid and sound education system. I thank the member for mentioning that.

It brings me back to — and I see you nodding, hon. Speaker — why this bill is important. It will ensure a standardization across the province so that you will not have a patchwork approach to taxation matters.

[1745]

Whether you are in Port Coquitlam, Langley, Fort St. John or Vancouver, the same rules will apply. I think that that is important, and it is something that this bill will accomplish.

Now, having said that, I must say that it’s been interesting to see members on the government side speak about this bill and the impacts in their own communities and what it will do for the independent schools in their own particular communities in terms of ensuring stability around financing and taxation issues, in particular when it comes to assessments by local government.
[ Page 9214 ]

I must admit, I was slightly taken aback that it was councils that I never thought for a minute would even look at using this taxation power that in fact had talked about using this particular taxation power. I know in the Tri-Cities, it’s not something that has been discussed. I did find it interesting that the former Minister of Education, his community…. I don’t know about Surrey, for example. But it’s like these were issues that were under discussion.

I can tell you that in my neck of the woods, it has not been under discussion, but I can tell you what has been under discussion. I actually wish it was in this bill, though I know that, technically, it’s not where you would find it. To be clear, my remarks are relating to Bill 29, the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

This bill does not deal with the capital construction of schools, for example. I know that while the contents of this bill have not been an issue for our local council — they are supportive of the bill — it has not been an issue for other municipalities in the Tri-Cities, who are also supportive of this bill. What has been an issue is the provision of schools in our school district.

The need, because of our growing community and growing population, is for new school construction. That’s really something that I would have liked to have seen. If not in this particular piece of legislation, then certainly I am hopeful or will be pressing the Minister of Finance that — the enthusiasm he has shown for correcting an imbalance or potential imbalance in the taxation around the ancillary property that independent schools have to deal with — in the budget documents he will no doubt table in the coming spring, there will be provision for the construction of new schools which are much needed.

On Burke Mountain, for example, we need a new elementary school. We need a new middle school. The school district has been able to secure five sites, but the reality is that if there’s no capital funding, then there will be no new schools built.

I think it’s important that we’re debating and discussing legislation that deals with the independent schools and some of the issues that they’re facing. As I’ve said, we support this particular piece of legislation.

I also want to put in a word at this time that in the minister’s closing remarks, if he were to say, “Hey, we’re dealing with this issue today, but I can tell you that in the spring, we are going to have funding in place for those much-needed schools on Burke Mountain that will strengthen our public education system, that will help parents who have chosen the public education system to have a school that is nearby, that their kids can get to,” I think that would be the icing on the cake. That would be the icing on the cake that I think all of us in this House could get behind.

[1750]

I say this because I know that in my own community, one of the issues…. A lot of people, as I said, have focused on Burke Mountain. The Catholic school is a high school just down the block from me. It is literally a four-minute walk from my house to the Catholic school, Archbishop Carney School, which is impacted by this particular piece of legislation — impacted in a positive way, I might add.

But if I walk ten minutes in the other direction, then I will be in an area where significant change has taken place in the construction of almost 1,000 townhomes and condominium units going in. At the last election campaign, for example, when I door-knocked through many of those units, it was amazing — the number of families with young kids in those townhouse units. One of the key issues was: “You know, we need a school.” Since that time, there have been more units being built and more units under construction.

The problem is that there’s no school site. Now, I know that that’s not dealt with by this particular piece of legislation, Bill 29, which we are debating. But it serves to illustrate, I think, some of the challenges that we face in education.

The independent schools have challenges they are concerned about around having to pay property tax and the desire by some municipalities to use powers that they currently have to tax lands that most people would think are appropriate and reasonable school uses — playing fields, for example, or the parking lot or a swimming pool and such like — and, I think, reasonably, would be supportive of doing this.

In fact, as I said, our local community has been supportive, and at UBCM it was not an issue. Clearly, knowing my friends at local government and having served at local government, if communities felt that this piece of legislation infringed on their powers and role and responsibility in anything, in any way, even remotely significant….

I see the member opposite who used to be the mayor of Langley township….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: City. I’m sorry. I apologize. That’s like Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam. They are not the same.

The member who was a former mayor of Langley city. I know, and he would agree with me, that if local government felt that there was a serious usurpation of their power taking place, they would have made that known at UBCM in no uncertain terms. They would have been demanding — demanding — a meeting with the minister. They would have been pounding on his door, saying: “No way can this legislation go through.” They would have been saying: “How could you, as a former mayor of the city of Langley, someone who understands local government, support a piece of legislation like that?” But that was not forthcoming, which tells me that local government understood what is at work here.
[ Page 9215 ]

However, I use that point to illustrate that while the government is solving one issue, it needs to understand that there are a lot of other fundamental education issues in the public school system that need to be addressed.

There needs to be a change in approach in order to resolve these issues. I can tell you that the one that I’m hearing about…. There are a number of issues. I mean, class size and composition is clearly one. But right now the one that I have been getting the most concern about from parents is the need for capital school construction, is the need for new schools on Burke Mountain, is to make sure that with the new construction in Port Coquitlam, we are getting the schools that we need and that we are getting them in a timely fashion.

It’s not as though this is development that is to be projected. This is development that is happening right now. If you drive down the end of Dominion Avenue, you will see the rows and rows of townhouses that are already built and occupied, as I said, by young families with kids. I’ve been door-knocking through there, during the last election campaign, and that was very much an issue top of mind for people. You can see the new construction that’s currently taking place — very nice, very popular developments. But again, parents want to know that there will be schools in place for kids.

[1755]

Of course, there’s no real explanation needed to describe…. In terms of the development that has been taking place on Burke Mountain, one can see the houses moving across. Some refer to it as a clearcut taking place. As the houses are going in, we need to make sure those schools are built.

Hon. Speaker, I’m not sure how much time I have left, but I know I’m coming to the end of my remarks. I know that we will be taking this bill on second reading this afternoon.

I just wanted to reiterate that we support this piece of legislation. It does bring into line a standardization across the province around taxation in regards to school property — not current school buildings, which are tax exempt whether they’re in the public system or in the independent system. Rather, it deals with those lands and properties, such as parking lots, playing fields….

It does not impact or change the designation of lands that may be held and are being used for a development purpose or residential. That’s something I know we’ve heard already in second reading debate. I know my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake will be exploring those issues further tomorrow when we are in committee stage.

As I said earlier, that’s an important part of this bill. I know that there are other people who will be speaking on this particular piece of legislation and that we will be finishing sometime, probably, between six and 6:30.

With that, I thank you for listening to my remarks. I take my place and look forward to hearing what others have to say.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to all members who participated in the debate.

The previous speaker, the hon. member for Port Coquitlam, is a seasoned enough parliamentarian not to have missed the time-honoured tradition or opportunity to advocate on behalf of his constituency with respect to capital — the need and desire for further capital and construction. I will resist the temptation to embark upon an analysis of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent each year on public school construction improvement. There will be ample opportunity to explore that in other proceedings before this House.

I won’t take a lot of time, but I did want to actually contrast something the member for Port Coquitlam said with something that his colleague, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, said. I had an opportunity to hear both speakers. And I apologize. I did not hear every single speaker in between.

The member for Victoria–Swan Lake — as, I suppose, the official spokesperson for the opposition on this bill — made a few comments that I can assure him won’t cause me a lot of lost sleep tonight but are worth, I think, exploring for a moment. The member was critical of the process that has been followed here. He was critical of the decision to table the bill and let people look at it. I actually share what I think I heard from his colleague, which is that that’s, at times, a very effective process.

This House has evolved over the years, and the member from Swan Lake won’t, perhaps, remember this. We have a calendar now. Trying to table legislation in a timely way so that all members, particularly the official opposition…. I mean, the government writes this stuff, so presumably, it knows what’s in it. But the opposition is confronted by legislation. Tabling it in a timely way and being able to say, as I think we have done now for a number of years, at a certain point in the spring session: “That’s it. That’s the extent of the legislation that the government intends to seek passage of,” doesn’t preclude tabling further legislation. But it says to the opposition: “That’s the package, and now you have a difficult job in terms of assessing how much time to spend.”

[1800]

So when we table a bill at the end as an exposure bill, I would have thought, actually, that as the official opposition spokesperson, he would have thought that a good thing, that he would have seen that as respectful of the interest that others might have, an opportunity — three or four months, in this case — for him and his colleagues to consult with folks that are affected and impacted, whether it is municipalities or independent schools, who obviously had an interest.

The member chose to characterize it very differently. I guess that’s instructive. I guess he has articulated his preference for how legislation should be introduced, and maybe that’ll be determinative in the future. But I think it was a very curious comment. He said something else, that
[ Page 9216 ]
municipalities are still in the dark. It’s a two-page piece of legislation. It’s been on the books for four months. What he said simply isn’t true.

It’s valid, obviously, to criticize the legislation if there are differences. But I hope that the member, when we have an opportunity to discuss this in more detail in the next few days in committee, will articulate his concerns around the substance of the bill — to the extent that there are concerns — and maybe reflect upon the procedure that has been followed here, which I actually think is respectful of the chamber, respectful of members and respectful of the stakeholders who have an interest in this.

There was another theme that emerged from some of the commentary, not all: that is, this bill doesn’t change anything; there’s nothing new here. I think someone said: “A waste of time.” Again, I don’t have to look far. I can quote from any number of folks on this side of the House and a few on the opposition side of the House who recognize that there was a developing inequity here.

What we are endeavouring to do is address that developing inequity before it becomes a much larger inequity. Those members who have spoken and pointed out that the practice has been, on the part of municipalities, not to apply their taxation authority to ancillary properties, fields and parking lots are quite correct. They are quite correct. But in the last couple of years, a few communities have looked at the existing legislative regime and said: “Well, we have an option, and we choose to exercise that option.”

I believe — and the member for Port Coquitlam said this too — that was not something his community wished to do. I think, quite frankly, if we canvassed the House, most members would say that was not something that their communities wish to do or intended to do. But they would also question a circumstance where other communities were permitted to do it and ask themselves: “Well, at a time when resources are scarce, are we not forgoing a source of revenue that is otherwise available to us?” Therein lies the developing inequity.

The government has tabled this legislation. It did so in May, as the member pointed out. It gave stakeholders — municipalities and independent schools — an opportunity to examine the legislation. Those members who have said — and again, the previous speaker pointed this out, commented — that this did not elicit great concern on the part of municipalities are correct, in my view. That was certainly my experience.

I know the independent member from Delta South made observations. I can only say, in response to her commentary, that after canvassing specifically the degree to which municipalities were concerned…. I think they would have been, and were, more concerned if the government didn’t take steps to preserve and enshrine the scenario that had been in place and that municipalities had followed.

[1805]

Legislating that equity was something I think the majority of communities are very much in favour of. The term, the phrase I heard was “ensuring standardization.” The same rules will apply. That is most certainly what we are endeavouring to achieve here, and as I say, I hope members will view this legislation for what it is.

Lastly, I will say this. I was a public school trustee. I am a passionate believer in and defender of public education. But I also understand that there are upwards of 70,000, 80,000, maybe 90,000 students from families in British Columbia that exercise their option, their right, their freedom to choose. They choose to educate their children through an independent school of their choice, which must comply with strict requirements and provide a curriculum that is approved.

For those parents and those schools — some are large, some are smaller — being confronted by a $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 additional tax bill was more than problematic. It could be catastrophic. For the members that chose to describe that as insignificant or dismissed that as being inconsequential, then I’m sorry. I disagree, because for those institutions confronted by that possibility, it certainly was not inconsequential. It would have been potentially catastrophic.

With that, Madame Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 29. I look forward to the questions that will follow.

[1810]

Second reading of Bill 29 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 29 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong 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 6:15 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