2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, February 29, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 8

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2016

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

ECONOMIC VALUE OF PARKS

K. Conroy: There’s been a great deal of discussion in the province about the pros and cons of a national park. I want to share some of the facts of the economic impact national parks can bring to an area, specifically the South Okanagan–Similkameen proposed national park.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

An economic study found that this park would produce over 700 jobs, $50 million in GDP, $35 million in labour income, over $57 million in increased spending in the region and over $4 million in new provincial tax revenue. The park would also increase tourism, support business growth, encourage investment, bring new facilities to the Okanagan region and increase passengers through the local airports.

One would think that most people and politicians would love to have a national park in their area generating millions of dollars in revenue, employment and economic activity. In fact, most people do. The latest poll that was done on support for this proposed national park showed that over 70 percent of the people in the region support the park. Various groups were also asked about their position on the park. All groups supported the park by large margins, with some of the highest support coming from ranching and farming families, and hunters. There’s also significant support from other places throughout the province.

[1005]

I want to point out some of that support — different regional governments’ support. It has come in informally approved resolutions from the Union of B.C. Municipalities; the Okanagan Basin Water Board, which represents three Okanagan regional districts; the Okanagan Nation Alliance; the Water Supply Association of B.C.; the Okanagan Water Stewardship Council; the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, which represents a great deal of the area that would be encompassed by the national park; the regional district of Central Okanagan; the regional district of North Okanagan — all submitting formal resolutions in support.

There’s considerable First Nations formal support. In fact, the Okanagan Nation Alliance did a national park feasibility study and it received unanimous approval from all leadership and communities. They’ve requested that they would like to engage in a government-to-government discussion about the park.

It’s interesting that chambers of commerce in the area have formally approved resolutions to also supporting the park. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 200 chambers in the province, submitted a resolution which was supported — it was put forward by the Kelowna chamber and supported by other chambers in the region — and was passed wholeheartedly by the B.C. Chamber.

The B.C. Wine Institute, which represents 137 winery members, 21 wine stores and 15 grape grower partners…. They all supported it. Here’s a quote from Ken Oldfield of the Tinhorn Creek Vineyards. He says: “On behalf of the wine industry, I am really heartened to know there is a strong majority of supporters for the national park across the region. The national park is very important for our business and the economy of the region. It will bring international travellers to our wineries and build our wine region’s brand internationally.” That would be a great thing. We have a great reputation in this province for our wineries and vineyards, but I think this would even enhance it further.

The Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 1,200 businesses in the Kelowna area, has also supported the national park. The South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 350 businesses, also supports the park, as does London Drugs. The drugstore, with its major chain with all of their different stores and their many millions of customers, also supports it.

Tourism has also been incredibly supportive of this concept. The Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association, which represents 90 agencies and 28 First Nations bands, has supported it, as do Destination Osoyoos, Tourism Penticton and Tourism Oliver — all representing tourist businesses in the South Okanagan region.

The municipal government support has also been there. I’d like to read a quote from Sue McKortoff, who is the mayor of Osoyoos as well as the director of the Okanagan Basin Water Board. She says: “This area has desert, endangered grasslands, badgers and bobolinks and one-third of B.C.’s endangered species. This national park would protect more species at risk, more endangered habitat types and encompass a greater diversity of ecosystems than any national park in Canada. Only a national park has the money, mandate and expertise to protect and restore our endangered species and help protect our watershed.”

Now, there’s also a great deal of support from environmental groups. That includes international, national and local groups. Some of the local groups include the Okanagan-Similkameen Parks Society, the
[ Page 10784 ]
Osoyoos Desert Society, the South Okanagan Naturalists Club, South Okanagan Rehab Centre for Owls, South Okanagan–Similkameen National Park Network, Twin Lakes Aquifer Group — all groups who really care and feel that the national park would be an excellent thing to happen in the area, not only for the environmental concerns, as the mayor, Sue McKortoff, talked about, but also for the economic value.

It’s been interesting that this park has been in a process of discussion for a number of years. In fact, it was mentioned in the throne speech in 2003. There was a memorandum of understanding that was signed between the B.C. and Canadian governments saying that a feasibility study agreement should go forward. They agreed that there were financial and job development benefits, and there was agreement that businesses in the park area would actually be accommodated.

[1010]

There’s been a number of polls that have been done, and every time the polls have been done — they have been done in 2007, 2009, 2010 and again in 2015; there was one in 2013 — the support for the national park has increased. It’s interesting that over 233 scientists have written to the province showing their support, for scientific reasons. The Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association did a ten-year regional plan, and all of the 90 agencies and First Nation communities supported the national park.

Former MP Alex Atamanenko and, actually, the current MLA for Penticton formally requested that the province re-engage in discussions with the government of Canada and ensure that the ranchers and HNZ, which is a helicopter company in the area, were given long-term security.

S. Sullivan: I’d like to, first of all, thank the member for Kootenay West for her remarks. Parks are an integral part of any community. They clean our air, provide opportunities for physical activity, help us reconnect with nature and offer places for families to come together and enjoy each other’s company.

British Columbia’s world-renowned parks provide access to exceptional natural spaces and superb recreational opportunities. They are truly unique treasures. With diverse climates, ranging from desert to rainforest, from coastal marine to high-elevation alpine, B.C. has one of the largest protected areas in North America, with more than 1,000 provincial parks, conservancies and ecological reserves covering 14 million hectares. That’s more than 14 percent of our provincial land base.

I might also just remind you of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement recently, where we’re talking about 6.4 million hectares. That’s almost the size of Ireland. That’s twice the size of Vancouver Island. Actually, one-quarter of the coastal temperate rainforest in the world is involved in this recent initiative.

We’re also unique in the nation, with a higher percentage of our land base dedicated to protected areas than any other jurisdiction in Canada. In the last decade, we’ve increased these areas by more than three million hectares. Our parks receive more than 21 million visits each year, and since 2014, park reservations through Discover Camping have been up nearly 19 percent.

Parks have real economic benefits. They improve our quality of life, encourage tourism, support local business and make communities more livable and more desirable for homeowners. These economic benefits are increasing thanks to the growing number of visitors from across the province and around the world each year.

There are a number of provincial parks just a stone’s throw from my riding of Vancouver–False Creek. Cypress Provincial Park is a valuable economic driver. It’s just 12 kilometres from downtown Vancouver and hosts more than 1.4 million visitors each year.

I might also, just parenthetically, note that we should be very careful when we are in public parks. That’s the place where I broke my neck, so prudence in using our parks is a good example — good for a political career, but not good for health.

This proximity to the city centre makes the park very attractive to tourists, weekend warriors and outdoor enthusiasts and provides fantastic access to great skiing and miles of hiking trails as well as picnic grounds and camping.

I, personally, take great pleasure in our public parks. I was so interested in regaining access to the public parks that I worked with an engineer to create a new device called a TrailRider, which enables people with disabilities to access the wilderness. So far, in East Vancouver, a manufacturer, Kowak Access, has created 125 of these devices and has sold them around the world. The most recent sale is to a First Nations family in Haida Gwaii who is using that to access the beautiful areas there.

[1015]

Mount Seymour is another great local park just a quick half-hour drive from downtown Vancouver.

Interjection.

S. Sullivan: Yes, exactly.

The park boasts an extensive trail system with multiple ski runs and four chair lifts. It’s a very popular destination for day and night snowshoeing. The park hosts more than 750,000 visitors each year and is also a very popular shooting destination for film and television crews. The park, may I also mention, has a very wonderful and popular MLA representing it.

These are just a few examples of local parks, and their representatives, that offer great recreational opportunities.

K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek for his support of parks. I know the residents of Okanagan-Similkameen share his support of parks. In fact, in the latest poll that was done, it showed 3 to 1 support — that’s three for, one against — in the regional
[ Page 10785 ]
district of Okanagan-Similkameen. It’s 2 to 1 support in Boundary-Similkameen constituency, and 4 to 1 support in the Penticton constituency.

In fact, 90 percent of people there believe that the protection of endangered species is a high priority, and 80 percent of the people in this polling believe that MLAs in the area should listen to the chamber of commerce, listen to regional governments, tourism associations and First Nations, who all support the national park process.

My understanding is that there’s an intentions paper that has been analyzed, and it is ready for the Minister of Environment to brief. She has promised to post these results soon. I think it was supposed to be now, or fairly quickly. The minister stated this was not a public opinion poll. Rather, they were looking for further input into their intended national park. So the public consultation process is complete. When will we hear the results?

When will the province start to work with the federal government, with Parks Canada, to complete this national park within our province here? The MLA for Penticton met with the national park folks and told them that the Liberals would, in fact, support the national park as long as there was a clear and public consultation process, and that has been done.

Parks Canada would only be allowed to purchase private ranch land on a willing seller, willing buyer basis, and that has been done. HNZ had the helicopter flight training school and was allowed to continue their business within the park boundary, and Parks Canada has already said that would be allowed.

All of these things can happen and will happen once the province returns to the park establishment process and negotiations with Parks Canada.

There has been some concern expressed by hunters and the B.C. Wildlife Federation about there being lack of financial support toward national parks. But let’s hope that with the new leadership in Ottawa, that’s something that won’t continue.

I want to say a word from Doreen Olson, the coordinator of the National Park Network. She says: “It is extremely gratifying to see that there is a strong majority of support for the park and that it is continuing to grow.” For someone who has been working on this since day one, it is indeed gratifying for her, I’m sure.

Let’s hope that one day soon we will see a new national park in B.C. — one that is actually wanted by the majority of people in South Okanagan–Similkameen and one that will be a significant economic driver, not only for the people of the region but for the entire province as well. It will be a job creator, a revenue generator, definitely an economic driver that will benefit the people of the province.

SUPPORTING FAMILIES WITH RESPs

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, it’s just great to be here to rise in the House this morning and speak about supporting families with RESPs. I know earlier, in conferring with my colleague from Abbotsford South, that we have similar sentiments on this topic.

What better way to kick-start education savings than by providing $1,200 for young people’s RESPs? As we know, this stands for registered education savings plan: special education savings accounts to help families save long-term for their children’s post-secondary education or training program. Certainly as a father and a grandparent now, I have grown to appreciate this much more as I hear all the good news about this.

[1020]

The money deposited in an RESP grows tax free until it’s withdrawn. They can be left open for up to 36 years and can be used for beneficiaries to pay for full-time or part-time studies in a qualifying college, university, trade school or apprenticeship program. So there’s wide application here.

The federal government provides the Canada education savings grant as an incentive for families to save. The Canada education savings grant pays a grant based on the amount contributed to an RESP for the child. Across the country, only Saskatchewan and Quebec also have programs that encourage families to open an RESP. Here in B.C., we have developed the B.C. training and education savings grant to encourage families to save for their children’s post-secondary education.

I know, personally, having completed a number of years of university, the financial struggle that many students go through. With this grant, the B.C. government will contribute $1,200 to the grant for eligible children. Education is the foundation of success for all our children. It unlocks amazing opportunities for personal growth and provides an exciting path towards meaningful career planning.

Almost 80 percent of job openings in the next decade will require some form of post-secondary education and training. That’s why we’re taking steps to make sure that young people have access to the training and education they need to take advantage of B.C.’s strong and vibrant economy.

I’m pleased to see that we’re expanding the program to include 40,000 additional eligible students. As announced in Budget 2016, we have extended the eligibility to children born in 2006 or later. An additional $39 million is being invested to expand the program. It’s all good news.

Each year more than 42,000 B.C. children may be eligible to receive the grant. To be eligible, children must have been born January 1, 2006, or later, and they must be a resident of B.C., along with their parent or guardian. Families have three years to submit an application for the grant when their child becomes available.

If a child is born in 2010 or later, they are eligible the day the child turns six and can apply for the grant until the day before the child turns nine. For those children
[ Page 10786 ]
born in 2007 to 2009, there is an extension until August 14, 2018, or the day before the ninth birthday, whichever is later, to receive the grant. With the expansion of the program for those born in 2006, we expect that families of these children will be able to start applying for the $1,200 grant before the end of 2016.

I want to just take a moment to highlight how easy it is to apply for the grant so all members can encourage their constituents to apply. It just takes three easy steps to start saving for your children’s future: make sure the child and parent each have a social insurance number, and that application process is relatively simple, especially for the child if it hasn’t been made yet; make sure the child is a beneficiary of an RESP with a participating financial institution; and third, apply for the $1,200 grant by filling out a form at a participating financial institution. No contribution is required to get the grant started.

Currently you can apply for a grant at more than 350 credit union branches. I might say, having had part of my career life working for credit unions, I’m really inspired to see credit unions getting started on this and really taking the lead, in many ways, for the grant. Also, BMO now has become involved, with 100 branches around B.C. As a matter of fact, most of Canada’s banks are expected to sign on, so people will be able to apply for the grant at other banking institutions.

With the $1,200 grant and an investment of $50 a month, savings could grow to $12,000 in 13 years. Growth of funds will of course depend on the amount invested and actual return, but this is just an example of how by putting a little amount of money aside each month, parents and families can make sure their children have savings for their future education.

If we can provide a little bit of support to jump-start savings for kids’ future education, that leads to success. The good news is that students can use their RESP savings at any qualifying institution in B.C., in Canada and even outside the country. Opening the doors for students to study where they choose to and in whatever program they choose is important, giving flexibility and choice for students to have a wide variety of career aspirations.

[1025]

Since the launch of this program in August 2015, more than 9,000 applications have been approved, so I encourage all grandparents, parents, families and children to look into this program and get the application in. Each family has their own personal education savings plan, and this grant provides a kick-start to those savings growing.

This is the kind of program that inspires me and makes me believe that the government is looking ahead optimistically and boldly for the future of our young people today. As I mentioned before, as a grandparent, I see nothing but a great future for our children, our grandchildren and even our great-grandchildren in this amazing province.

R. Fleming: I’m very pleased to respond to the member on this item this morning. It’s something that I think, in terms of savings and planning for post-secondary education, is something that every parent — in fact, every citizen in British Columbia — should be concerned about.

The reality of the matter is that in Canada writ large — just leaving aside British Columbia for the moment — the rate of savings of Canadians is amongst the worst in all of the G7 countries. The household debt and balance sheet for Canadians stacks up very unfavourably compared to other wealthy industrialized nations. A lot of this can be attributed to housing costs, to be sure.

The fact of the matter is that most Canadians have, to put it mildly, inadequately saved and prepared for post-secondary education for their own children. This, of course, is a source of a great deal of anxiety for parents in British Columbia, a great deal of, perhaps, even guilt, even though the issue is not their fault.

If you look at statistics around earnings and other things, that would explain why Canadians’ rate of savings has not been equal to other countries, let alone adequate to help their children receive an advanced education that will get them into a job that will help them be prosperous and raise a family in a comfortable fashion.

Let’s be clear. In the context of a very large problem in our country and in our province, the scale of ambition of this RESP program released by government, announced umpteen times, over and over again…. You want to talk about the photo-op industry, Mr. Speaker, I think this program demonstrates how many flashbulbs have been consumed.

Let us be clear. This is a very, very, very modest initiative. It needs to be compared to this government’s record on, for example, tuition fee costs during their time in office. These have more than doubled. This government eliminated a system of study grants for students that helped reduce student debt. We’re one of the only provinces in the country that doesn’t have a free grant component for post-secondary students, and those are the students in the here and now, today, that we need to enter the labour force and contribute and pay taxes in our economy now.

We’re talking about a program that will not have any appreciable impact for another decade. This RESP program is for babies born in, now, 2006 and after. It will take a very long time for that cohort to see any benefit from it.

This is also a government that got rid of trades and apprenticeship tuition waivers. Certified apprenticeships used to be free in the province of British Columbia. It was a major recruitment tool, because we knew we needed students to enter skilled trades, or we would be importing the labour from elsewhere and not giving British Columbians the opportunity for jobs that would be opening up in skilled trades. That’s the government’s record.

You bet you’ve got to save more than ever before as a parent in British Columbia, because there are no grants,
[ Page 10787 ]
tuition fees have doubled, and tuition fees have been imposed for trades-training programs in B.C. That’s the record of this government.

Now let’s look at the administrative problems of this program. There’s only one chartered bank, at this date, involved in this program. Very few credit unions are involved. So there are a lot of inconvenient hiccups, to put it mildly, for parents to work through if they want to access this program.

[1030]

The worst thing, and perhaps this is even a little bit cynical…. The government’s own budget assumptions around the RESP program assume that only 60 percent — only three in five British Columbians — are actually going to register their kid for this RESP. They’re counting on 40 percent of British Columbians not to be involved in it, and to reap that savings to pay for it in future years.

Now, let’s have a wild guess as to who will be the 40 percent, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to you that it’s the parents in most need, because they have the most limited means to get that $1,200 and have some kind of tiny nest egg that would, admittedly, not even address the doubled tuition fees of this government. But that 40 percent are the ones that we need to reach. I’m trying to reach those people, because many of them are my constituents, to tell them that there’s a $1,200 limited savings program for them.

I don’t want 40 percent of British Columbians to miss out on this program, modest that it is. This government should be seeking to have 100 percent enrolment in this program. They should be doing a heck of a lot more when it comes to making post-secondary education accessible and affordable, to be sure. But on this program, to count on two in five British Columbians not even being involved is shameful.

S. Gibson: I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria–Swan Lake for his ruminations. I want to take this time to expand on the different educational choices, the exciting choices, available to people in British Columbia. And there are many. After all, the savings grant that we’ve been discussing will be used for a variety of post-secondary educational options.

We’ve been working hard to make sure that we have the training in place so British Columbians will have access to all the future jobs being created, and the amount of future jobs is dazzling. Every day we hear amazing opportunities are going to be coming our way in the very near future.

We are shifting an education training to better match in-demand occupations. That’s important. We want to make sure that young people today realize that their training and education apply directly to their career aspirations. Students will be better prepared with the skills they need to succeed. Right now there are approximately 430,000 students enrolled in at least one course at one of our 25 public post-secondary institutions provincewide. It’s my privilege to have been able to teach at two post-secondary institutions here in our province over 16 years.

Post-secondary education offers a great return on investment, whether it’s a diploma, certificate, trade or degree. For example, British Columbians with an undergraduate degree can expect to earn additional $827,000 over their lifetime.

Since 2001, more than 32,000 new student seats have been added to the public post-secondary system. This includes 2,500 graduate positions. B.C. institutions are awarding more credentials all the time. We’ve seen an increase of 6.3 percent since 2011 alone, and we’re seeing an increase in aboriginal students receiving credentials — important to help those folks get fully involved in their career aspirations.

We’ve added more than 8,500 new spaces in health and medical programs since 2001. This includes more than doubling the number of nursing spaces funded. As well, we have more than doubled the number of first-year spaces for medical students, also since 2001. The total is now 288 seats, up from 128 in 2001.

We have more apprenticeship training programs and critical trades seats throughout the province for students entering in-demand jobs. The Industry Training Authority provides over 100 apprenticeship training programs provincewide. In 2014 and 2015 alone, almost 39,000 apprentices and foundation participants were registered in the skills trades program.

There is more opportunity for students to pursue post-secondary education programs of their choice. We are making sure our youth are prepared for future careers and exciting futures.

SECURE AND AFFORDABLE PLACES TO LIVE

M. Mark: It’s an honour to be here to represent the constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It is no secret that we are in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. The definition of a “crisis” is “a time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger.” It is a time when a difficult, important decisions must be made. For many British Columbians, home ownership is so far off the map that it is virtually out of reach for many individuals in this province.

[1035]

Over the past several months, while I had the opportunity to connect with constituents throughout Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, people did not complain to me about not having $1 million to buy a home. Instead, they expressed grave concerns and frustrations about lengthy wait-lists to access social and affordable housing, and the increased barriers to resolve disputes, either as tenants or landlords.

For the 40 percent of renters in British Columbia, we are at an impasse when it comes to the relationship between landlord and tenant. In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, 75 percent of residents are renters, so there’s a huge impact on their lives as tenants and renters.
[ Page 10788 ]

Families, seniors, couples and singles told me about their wish list for more purpose-built housing throughout Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and beyond. It is evident that our province is diverse, as, too, are our housing needs.

While I appreciate that there is no easy answer to address this crisis, it is clear that the development of new rental housing stock is essential.

In November 2015, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association released the most comprehensive study of rental housing ever done in B.C., which indicated that our housing system has failed single mothers and created a crisis for renters under 30 and for aboriginal people. They argue that the lack of available rental housing could impact economic growth.

On February 4, 2016, tech executive Michael Tippett, who runs the company Wantoo, told the media that affordability is something that local industry leaders are concerned about.

“Affordable housing is obviously critical to anyone’s ability to stay and live in Vancouver. The fact that it’s expensive to have a home here, whether you’re renting or buying, makes it difficult for people to start companies,” says Tippett. “In those instances, you’re having to invest capital to start things up, and that’s a real challenge.”

Back to the report. According to Tony Roy, the CEO of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, what we are facing here is a massive supply issue. The need for social housing is at an emergency level that is exasperating homelessness. We also need to build affordable rental housing aimed at the working class.

According to this same report in November 2015, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association study shows that renters are often working in the restaurant industry and real estate, but a large amount of them are in the health care field, construction workers and accountants. This is telling information, as it speaks to the diversity of renters across the professional spectrum.

According to David Hutniak, CEO of LandlordBC, he states that we need all levels of government to step up to the plate. We need tax incentives for the building of new purpose-built rental units and for the renovation and enhancement of aging rental stock to offset high land and construction costs. Better support for renters whose needs are not met through the market, be it through portable housing allowances or similar programming, is also needed.

Linda Morris, a senior VP at Vancity Credit Union added that access to stable and affordable housing for the workforce is a part of a healthy community. Vancity is advocating for alternatives to support growth in the affordable housing sector, including rental.

The details of the study previously mentioned indicate that single mothers are facing the toughest challenges when it comes time to renting. They are financially struggling to pay rent across the province. One-third of single mothers spend more than 50 percent of their gross income on rent. That’s a crisis level of overspending. In cities such as Coquitlam, Penticton and Nanaimo, over 40 percent of single-mother renters are spending a majority of their gross income on rent.

Cities in Metro Vancouver also have the highest level of rents for single-mother households, where rents in Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Richmond and Langley districts are averaging between $1,026 and $1,097, well over the $812 national average, and intensifying the issue of overcrowding.

This study illustrates that seniors are struggling to pay rent in big cities and small towns. Rental affordability is also putting a financial strain on seniors in Kelowna, West Vancouver and Saanich. They’re facing high, crisis levels of spending. One-third of seniors are spending over 50 percent of their gross income on rent.

[1040]

The index also shows that the highest rents paid by seniors are in Whistler, at $1,909, and West Kelowna, at $1,496. The highest average rents paid by seniors are in regions such as the Central Okanagan where, on average, seniors spend more than 40 percent of their gross income on rent, at $1,223 per month.

As the members opposite are aware, in May 2015, the office of the seniors advocate released a report called Housing in B.C.: Affordable, Appropriate, Available, where she stated that the affordability of independent housing for low- and moderate-income seniors — both renters and homeowners — is challenging. Data supports that many seniors who rent, particularly those in the Lower Mainland and greater Victoria, are in genuine need of more support to cover their rental costs.

With respect to aboriginal people, in greater Vancouver and the capital region, over a quarter of aboriginal people are spending over 50 percent of their gross income on rent. In smaller communities such as the Cowichan Valley and Thompson-Nicola, more than one-third of aboriginal people are spending in excess of 50 percent of their gross income on rent, putting them at a crisis level of spending.

According to the Lu’ma Native Housing Society, there are at least 5,000 people currently on the wait-list. The society projects that it will take upwards of 85 years to house the people on the wait-list.

J. Yap: It’s my honour to rise today to respond to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I thank her for her comments and want to take this opportunity to share some of the positive steps government is taking.

I do want to just mention that I was interested to hear the member say — and I’m pretty sure this is an exact quote — that there are no easy answers to this very important issue of affordable housing. I’m glad that she has acknowledged that.

As I mentioned, our government is committed to working on solutions to the affordability of housing. We know that B.C. is an attractive place to live. It’s breath-
[ Page 10789 ]
takingly beautiful, with world-class outdoor recreational opportunities, great neighbourhoods and people, an exceptional quality of life and an economy that is the envy of other jurisdictions. But because we have so many people that do want to live here, housing supply is one of the key issues that needs to be addressed, and our government is addressing this important issue.

With respect to Vancouver, we have made significant investments to help end homelessness. This includes $300 million to work in partnership with the city to build more than 1,500 new supportive housing units. We’ve purchased 24 SROs in Vancouver to preserve 1,400 units of affordable housing. We’re now investing more than $143 million to renovate 13 of these buildings in the Downtown Eastside, many of these in the member’s riding.

We spend about $27 million each year to fund 740 permanent, year-round shelter beds. In total, we invest about $150 million annually to provide emergency shelter services, subsidized housing and rent supplements for more than 27,000 low-income people in Vancouver.

When I look at my own community of Richmond-Steveston, I note the amount of growth we’ve seen in recent years, especially the growth that has come with the construction of the really popular Canada Line system. We’ve seen significant economic development along that transit line, from residential dwellings to retail spaces to hotel accommodations and more. With this smooth and efficient mode of public transportation in place, many more people have begun to consider Richmond as a viable option to live, raise a family, do business and then also be able to conveniently commute downtown for work.

With this growth comes another challenge, and that’s constrained geography and available land. Certainly, our community is not immune to these pressures, being home to such rich agricultural land, as well, which can be restrictive in terms of where we can build.

That said, we’ve been able to make some key local investments in affordable housing in Richmond over the past years.

[1045]

Seniors living on low incomes are benefiting from 296 affordable rental apartments at Kiwanis Towers, near Richmond Centre, which opened in July of last year. This partnership with the city of Richmond and the Richmond Kiwanis Senior Citizens Housing Society more than doubled the number of affordable units for seniors originally available at that site.

Meantime, in May of 2015, in partnership with the federal government, we announced the purchase of 21 rental apartments in Richmond to ensure families with low to moderate incomes have more access to affordable housing. The apartments, directly managed by B.C. Housing, are part of a 296-unit market housing development in the city, Saffron on the Park.

These issues around supply in constrained geography that I’ve highlighted are just some of the factors we need to keep in mind.

I was pleased to see that Budget 2016 contains some significant measures to help, particularly with supply. Newly built homes up to $750,000 will be fully exempt from the property transfer tax when purchased by Canadian citizens or permanent residents. This represents savings of up to $13,000 for the purchaser. Meantime, we’re also investing $355 million over five years for the construction or renovation of more than 2,000 affordable housing units in communities across British Columbia. This is historic, representing the largest single social and affordable housing investment in our province’s history.

M. Mark: On February 17, 2016, in response to the budget, Tony Roy, the CEO of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, told the media that he welcomes the new housing affordability measures in the budget but says that the budget failed to offer initiatives to boost rental housing. He added that the need shows that, provincewide, we need to be adding 5,000 units a year just to meet growth projections, and that’s of subsidized housing.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, between 2005 and 2010, this government has only built 280 social housing units, whereas previous B.C. NDP governments worked cooperatively with the federal government to build between 1,000 and 1,500 new units of social housing per year.

There was a time when SROs in the Downtown Eastside were affordable. Today single-room occupancies are going for anywhere between $700 to $800 per month, which is, of course, way out of touch with the social assistance rates that people are currently receiving. There is no question that there is a lot of work to be done to meet the current needs of the 40 percent of renters in British Columbia, to put a dent in the wait-list and to mitigate further hardship on our families, youth, seniors and working class.

I’d like to add that over the past few months, people on income assistance told me about their experiences of discrimination when trying to rent — namely, youth that aged out of the foster care system and single parents. There is a growing tension building between those who rent out their apartments and those who rent.

It is my hope that I can work with this government or that this government takes a lead on modernizing the Residential Tenancy Act and that the administration of this act serves to better protect the interests of both tenants and landlords. It is imperative that we have timely measures in place to resolve disputes and to enforce the law when laws are broken.

According to the city of Vancouver, which released a rental recommendations report in 2015, there is a huge need to reform the B.C. residential tenancy system. We need to make the rules clearer. We need to modernize
[ Page 10790 ]
technology and systems. We need to make the system faster and more efficient.

We need to get tough on lawbreakers. We need to protect low-income renters by placing rent controls on the single-room-occupation units. We need to make changes to the system to ensure that we have stable and secure housing, which means also amending the act to allow tenants who are fleeing domestic violence to have a way out of fixed-tenancy agreements.

There is a crisis happening in British Columbia for those that are renters.

[1050]

SUPPORT FOR JOB FAIRS

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise on behalf of the constituents of Shuswap and speak about our government’s support for job fairs and the job creation and multitude of benefits that arise from them for British Columbian families.

Personally, I love job fairs. I have attended several in my home riding since becoming an MLA, and I’m always lifted by the enthusiasm and ambition of those that are attending. Coming up this April in Salmon Arm, for example, will be a job career fair focused on aboriginal youth ages 15 to 29 who are unemployed or in need of further education or skills development.

Held in collaboration between the Neskonlith Indian band education project coordinator, Work B.C. and Okanagan College, their goal is to provide youth with positive leads and to initiate discussions on various education or skills required to enter their chosen career paths. I’m proud that our government is committed to making First Nations in B.C. equal partners in achieving prosperity.

Our government’s B.C. jobs plan has created the Aboriginal Business and Investment Council to work with First Nations to create new economic partnerships, and we are committed to continue our partnership with First Nations to spark investment, create jobs and provide economic benefits for First Nations.

Indeed, we are focused on making potential career paths more accessible to all young people in B.C., most notably through Work B.C.’s Find Your Fit program. The Find Your Fit tour is packed with tons of fun and engaging activities to help students learn about different careers in B.C. and to spark their curiosity.

The tour is again visiting communities across B.C. this year. Find Your Fit is an interactive event where students in grades 6 to 10 will jump right in and try the skills they’ll need for different careers in demand across the province. This hands-on program will help students apply real-life experiences to their career planning. They learn about on-line resources to help them find work and even try some of the skills that they will need for different careers.

Our government’s Site C project in northeastern B.C. has already proved to be a major job creator, and there will be many more jobs to come over the life of construction of this hydro power project. People are flocking to job fairs for the opportunities across B.C. Just last week more than 1,000 men and women attended a Site C job fair in Prince George. Another job fair was held the next day in Quesnel, with several hundred more job seekers in attendance. In all the job fairs — in Prince George, Quesnel, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd — more than 5,000 people have lined up and left their resumés.

The potential to work on the Site C project is more than just a job. It’s an opportunity to be part of a legacy project for our province that will provide clean, reliable and cost-effective electricity for more than 100 years. Site C will endow future generations of British Columbians with 100 years of reliable and clean power. Currently B.C. has the third-lowest residential rates and the fourth-lowest industrial rates in North America, while generating 97.9 percent of its energy from completely clean sources.

We have to meet future needs while maintaining this cost advantage. The answer is clear: to keep rates low, we must build Site C. According to the independent joint review panel, Site C will provide the most affordable, reliable and clean power compared to alternatives for more than 100 years, creating 10,000 construction jobs over the life of the project and approximately 33,000 total person-years of employment through all stages of development and construction.

How will Site C power our economy and create jobs? On top of securing low rates and a renewable clean source of energy for the future of our province, $3.2 billion will be added to the provincial economy from the purchase of goods and services during construction.

This includes $130 million to the regional economy, $40 million in tax revenues during construction to local governments, an estimated $2 million per year to local governments during operations from grants in lieu of school taxes, $179 million in provincial revenues and $270 million in federal revenues from activities during construction. Site C is a keystone to B.C. Hydro’s ten-year capital plan, which will create 110,000 jobs and contribute $13 billion to B.C.’s GDP.

We want our children and grandchildren to have affordable, reliable, clean power like we enjoy today. On our side of the House, we want to grow the economy, create jobs and power the future. We want to do it using clean energy and ensuring conservation plays a significant role.

[1055]

The NDP plan is not balanced by any semblance of interest in economic growth. That explains why they seem to believe B.C. will have no need for new power. The opposition’s energy policy illustrates how much they lack economic expertise and awareness.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join in the debate on this issue.

I guess, at the outset…. The member for Shuswap talks about the value of job fairs. We all think job fairs are a
[ Page 10791 ]
pretty good idea. We have job fairs, opportunities for people to get together, maybe connect with employers. That’s a good thing, and it’s a good thing if we can do that.

The member talks about all of the people who attended these fairs. I suspect that probably is reflective of the fact that we have two economies in British Columbia: one in the Lower Mainland and the lower Island, and one in the rest of the province where, in fact, it is challenging for people right now. People are challenged about employment opportunities. They are concerned about their employment opportunities and how they’re going to support their families and how their communities are going to thrive.

That, I think, really raises the underlying and fundamental question in this whole debate. We saw it in the project development agreement that we debated last year around Pacific NorthWest LNG, a project development agreement that said nothing about guaranteeing British Columbians jobs, nothing about local procurement, nothing about apprenticeships and nothing about First Nations’ involvement in that employment. It just simply isn’t in the agreement.

The member talks about Site C. We have exactly the same situation at Site C. There’s nothing there about employment for British Columbians. There’s nothing about local procurement. There’s nothing about apprenticeships. There’s nothing about First Nations. At this point, in fact, what we see is a dispute with First Nations over the project in its entirety, a dispute that is ongoing.

That’s the problem. It’s a particularly profound issue with Site C. That’s taxpayers’ dollars. That’s B.C. taxpayers who are going to pay the $10-billion-plus that this project will cost, and B.C. taxpayers wonder why there’s no B.C.-first approach to this project, why British Columbians aren’t a priority in this project, why that isn’t clear in the agreements in the first place.

I attended an event that the member for Shuswap was at: the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. It was an interesting kind of event. We got to join tables of business people and go around. In at least two of those tables, I heard the same comments — frustration from those business people that they could not find the opportunity to be able to have their businesses benefit from Site C. They talked very specifically about that. They talked very specifically about the lack of any B.C.-first model. They talked very specifically, one of them a welding company, about how they just could not get an opportunity to get in.

We know that’s true. That’s where we have to ask ourselves the question here. If we’re going to invest, particularly, taxpayers’ dollars in capital projects, why aren’t we taking a B.C.-first approach? Why aren’t we saying jobs will be there for British Columbians first and foremost? The companies that want to bid…. Anybody should have the right to bid, but they’re going to meet conditions, whether they’re a B.C. company or an Alberta company. They’re going to meet conditions around hiring British Columbians, around making sure our small businesses and other businesses get a chance to get some of that business.

When we talk about jobs on these projects, we need to remember there are a lot of jobs that get created in the businesses that support those projects. The government has ignored all of those entirely — $10 billion, at least, of taxpayers’ money and not an assurance of a single job for a British Columbian.

Will British Columbians get work? Sure they will. Will they get the work they should get? I don’t believe they will. Will businesses get the work? I don’t believe it. Are we going to see the apprenticeships that we should see on these projects, when there are vast amounts of public dollars? It doesn’t appear to be the case. Mostly, it’s a conflict with First Nations when it comes to the Site C project. We’ll hope it will do a little bit better on other projects as we move forward. But that’s the situation we face today.

[1100]

When we talk about job fairs and when we talk about these issues, let’s be clear. It’s time for a B.C.-first approach to economic development. This government has failed and failed. It’s about B.C. Liberal friends first. That seems to be the case.

It’s time to put people in this province first. This government has failed to do it, and they failed to do it spending the taxpayers’ money. Terribly unfortunate, but that’s the harsh reality we face.

G. Kyllo: It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that members opposite are dead set on finding any excuse to tell those 5,000 people who are lined up to work on Site C to take their boots and hardhats and to go home. These are good family-supporting jobs, and this is the kind of project that everybody in B.C. should be supporting.

Let’s not forget that we’re Canadians first. British Columbians have largely benefited from a lot of resource development projects across this great country. It would be unfair, I think, for us to not provide an equal opportunity for other companies across Canada. Of course, B.C. companies are well positioned to take advantage of Site C, and they, indeed, are doing so.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The construction of the Site C project has been underway since July of 2015, with significant site preparation work taking place, including local road improvements, clearing the site, building access roads, a temporary construction bridge and a 600-person worker accommodation camp. The number of workers on site peaked at nearly 600 workers during site preparation activities last fall, approximately three-quarters of whom are from B.C.

Let’s not forget that if it was up to the members opposite, Site C wouldn’t even be going right now. Those folks
[ Page 10792 ]
working in a capital investment in B.C. for future generations would not even be moving forward.

We’re taking steps to ensure that British Columbians are first in line to work on Site C projects. B.C. Hydro is promoting local hiring by working with regional economic development agencies, funding skills-training programs in the region, and planning and participating in local and regional job fairs. Employment at the construction site will be ramping up this year as the main civil works construction starts. The main civil works will require approximately 1,500 workers at peak construction, and we’ll need approximately 600 workers in early summer.

As I indicated earlier, job fairs are planned, or have already taken place, around central and northern B.C., including Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Dawson Creek, Tumbler Ridge, Mackenzie, Prince George and Quesnel. There will be more job fairs as further contracts are let and more workers are needed.

B.C. Hydro has been holding business-to-business networking sessions to provide local businesses with the opportunity to meet successful contractors and to build relationships. Since B.C. Hydro started holding business-to-business sessions for Site C in 2014, there have been four rounds of sessions in a total of six communities which connected over 1,500 people and approximately 1,200 businesses with Site C contractors. B.C. Hydro plans to hold further sessions as construction continues.

Jobs are what keep our economy strong, and our government is focused on building conditions for the creation of more jobs for British Columbians. The B.C. jobs plan four-year progress update was released in December and shows that employment, exports and B.C.’s gross domestic product have reached record highs. B.C. has recorded growth of more than 126,000 jobs since the launch of the jobs plan.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member’s Motion 6.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — REFERRAL OF CLASS SIZE
AND COMPOSITION ISSUES
TO EDUCATION COMMITTEE

R. Fleming:

[Be it resolved that this House consider referring the issue of the impacts of class size and composition on the learning outcomes of British Columbia’s students to the Select Standing Committee on Education.]

Thank you for the opportunity this morning to debate class size and composition and its importance on the learning outcomes of B.C. students and, also, the importance, I think, of referring this issue to the Legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Education.

This morning I’d like to make a number of points that I think are important to literally hundreds of thousands of students, parents and teachers. It is the issue within public education that relates to the quality and experience of classroom learning in our public schools. This is both a topical and a timely subject for debate because it’s a persistent issue in the minds of parents and students and teachers. It is the issue that came to a boil during this government’s disastrous four-month shutdown of B.C. schools in 2014, which was the longest disruption of school service in our province’s history.

[1105]

It’s also important to debate this issue this morning because it’s supposedly the central theme of the Ministry of Education’s service plan, the B.C. education plan, which calls for a shift of more resources towards personal and individualized learning for students. Class size and composition is also topical because the Premier herself said, 18 months ago, that it was “the most vitally important issue for my government” — the most vitally important issue. So I’m sure the Liberal members appreciate us debating it here this morning, given that prioritization from the Premier.

The question for us this morning is: how has the government performed on an issue that the Premier called her number one priority? Well, the results since this issue gained the Premier’s attention are not good. Ministry data released just a couple of weeks ago reported that class sizes in British Columbia are growing. That means that the amount of individual attention that students get to learn and understand their subjects is reduced. The number of classes with 30 or more students in our province actually increased by 25 percent this year.

This is not an anomaly or a one-off year. It is a trend line under this government. B.C. has, and continues to have, the worst student-teacher ratio in Canada. B.C.’s average number of students per teacher is a full three additional students above the national average.

Now, in places like Surrey, British Columbia, young kids and teenagers who are hoping to get to college and university are not only learning in classrooms with too many students in them, but one in seven of those Surrey students aren’t even in a proper classroom. They’re in a portable. The student population of portables in Surrey is so large that counted on its own, it would be the 24th-largest district in the province.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I see the former Minister of Education, who’s a member from Surrey, muttering something about that. I would advise him to get out and listen to
[ Page 10793 ]
his constituents on the issue if he doesn’t care to believe me this morning.

What about class composition? How is government’s promise to put more resources and attention towards helping kids with identified special learning needs in our school system working? Again, the trend line is going the wrong way. Let’s start with pre-kindergarten. In 2009, the B.C. Liberals committed to reducing by half the number of children considered emotionally, physically or cognitively vulnerable entering kindergarten. Well, today the percentage of kids in this category grew from 29 percent to 33 percent. It was not cut in half to 15. It has grown worse.

The problem that concerns us here in this debate is that government is not just failing to help these kids before they enter school; they are failing them once they enter our schools. Again, the most recent ministry data show that the number of classes with four or more students with designated special needs — and, therefore, entitled to an individual education plan — increased from 9,559 classes in 2006-07, ten years ago, to 16,516 this year. In other words, 7,000 more classes have been added to the reporting by government of classes that are out of compliance with the policies of this government.

The situation is so common now that one in four classrooms in British Columbia are out of compliance with class composition guidelines and policies. Within these numbers, there’s something even more disturbing. Over 4,000 classrooms actually have student numbers of seven or more students with IEPs inside these classrooms.

This is difficult for everyone. It’s difficult for students of all learning abilities. It’s very difficult for teachers, whose attentions are demanded in many, many directions. With 3,500 fewer teachers in our school system today than in 2002, including 1,500 fewer teachers with special education designations, the job has become much, much more difficult.

Improving class size and composition was the Premier’s number one priority. What did we see in the budget? A billion dollars in tax cuts for the rich and nothing for this problem, which was supposedly the Premier’s number one priority.

L. Larson: On behalf of the people of Boundary-Similkameen, it is my pleasure to respond to the motion from the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

First, I must say that in my riding of smaller communities, and throughout rural B.C., declining enrolment is often more of a challenge than class size and composition. Our students are generally on par with those from across B.C., where young people in greater numbers have education outcomes that are among the best in Canada and, indeed, the world. I’m proud that B.C. has an education system that motivates talented and engaged students. They are motivated by outstanding teachers, parents who are involved and committed in their children’s education and forging links to dedicated education partners.

[1110]

We created the learning improvement fund in 2012 to address complex classroom needs and ensure learning conditions are appropriate for all students. It provides funding for teachers, special education assistants or other appropriate supports for students and school staff to address complex class-composition issues. School districts receive a boost from the LIF in the form of supplementary funding in addition to operating grants. It allows them to use the funds to address complex classroom needs, including the hiring of teachers and educational assistants.

We have increased the learning improvement fund allocation to school districts by more than 66 percent since 2013-2014, to $100 million in 2015-16. School districts, principals and teachers consult with each other to determine how that funding is used. This allows the schools to tailor the supports to the unique needs of each classroom. As a result of the learning improvement fund, 98 percent of all classes have 30 or fewer students today. Indeed, our province’s average class sizes are well below the legislated hard caps on class sizes.

Further to that, the research is clear: the quality of teaching has a greater impact on achievement than the class size — and I must say that our teachers are second to none.

We are investing a record $5.1 billion in public education this year, an increase of $110 million over last year. In addition, annual education funding is $1.2 billion higher than it was in 2000-2001, a 32 percent increase. Since 2000-2001, we’ve seen average per-student funding for public schools increase by 42 percent, from $6,262 to $8,908 in 2015-16.

B.C.’s strong economic growth and fiscal discipline means our government is able to fund major improvements and projects. We’re investing $1.47 billion over the next three years to replace, renovate, expand or seismically upgrade K-to-12 facilities. Capital investment is up 16 percent over last year, and last year we invested more than $300 million to build, maintain and improve K-to-12 schools throughout the province. Currently 28 capital projects are in progress. These include three brand-new schools and seven replacement schools as well as 18 school seismic upgrades.

School closures have been taking place across B.C. and across Canada for several years now. I want to reiterate that schools aren’t closing because of a lack of funding; schools are closing because of a lack of students.

In the 1950s and ’60s, many parents were having four, five and six kids. Neighbourhoods were teeming with children, and schools couldn’t be built quickly enough to accommodate the bulging population. With smaller families following the baby boom, it was inevitable that many of those once full schools and bursting school districts would suffer an enrolment decline.
[ Page 10794 ]

Closing a school is never an easy decision, but it’s a decision that rests with the boards of education, who are experts on each community’s situation. School districts must have broad consultations prior to the closure of underutilized schools. Boards are not funded on space; they’re funded on enrolment. In most cases, the savings are redirected to the students in the classroom.

We are investing record levels in our public education system and supporting capital projects in public school districts across the province. We’ve created an environment that nurtures students and allows them to reach their full potential. We understand as government that we are a vital player in the development of precious young minds, and we are committed to ensuring that B.C. students have the best opportunity to succeed in the classroom, which sets them on their way towards rewarding, fulfilling lives.

K. Corrigan: I’m very pleased to rise in support of the motion: “Be it resolved that this House consider referring the issue of the impacts of class size and composition on the learning outcomes
[ Page 10795 ]
of British Columbia’s students to the Select Standing Committee on Education.”

You know, I find it interesting that the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who spoke just before I did, chose once again not to use her time to stand up for the community of Osoyoos, in her riding, to save its elementary and local high school from closure. I think that’s very unfortunate — and not only that, to blame the local school board for the lack of funding and support that they have not received so that they could keep their schools open.

[1115]

We should be using the committee system more in the B.C. Legislature. In no case is that more important than education. The history of education under the B.C. Liberals has been bitterly confrontational between the B.C. Liberals and the teachers, and productive discussion has been almost nonexistent. Referral would provide the opportunity for discussion of, and possibly addressing, what is a very important issue.

One of the first things that our present Premier did in 2002, then as Minister of Education, was to strip bargaining on class size and composition out of teachers’ contracts. This was at the same time as the B.C. Liberals stripped protections from health care workers as well — a move that led to the largest mass firings in B.C. history, predominantly women.

That health care legislation was found unconstitutional in 2007. The teachers then went to court, and in 2011, teacher bargaining rights were found to have been trampled in a similar fashion. Stripping class size and composition has now been found unconstitutional twice — the original legislation and follow-up legislation — and the issue is now before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The unfortunate thing is that prior to stripping class size and composition in 2002, the relationship between teachers and the government was starting to work. Unfortunately, at every turn, when there has been an opportunity for that relationship between the government and teachers to mature and to improve and for trust to develop between the parties, repeatedly, the government has done something else which destroys that trust.

Perhaps the most cynical move by the B.C. Liberals was revealed by Madam Justice Griffin, who found in her decision that at the same time as provincial representatives were meeting with the BCTF, the B.C. Teachers Federation, they had another agenda. I quote from the decision: “Their strategy was to put such pressure on the union that it would provoke a strike by the union. The government representatives thought this would give government the opportunity to gain political support for imposing legislation on the union.”

That — when the core of the previous health care and education court decisions was that government did not consult and bargain in good faith before stripping away provisions from the collective agreements. What has been lacking from this Liberal government is respect for teachers. That being said, one positive move could be referring the discussion to the Education Committee.

Apparently, I’ve been on that committee for years now. I just found that out recently. But unfortunately, we’ve never met. In fact, government has not convened the committee since late 2006, almost a decade.

Class size and composition is important, as school boards have struggled with funding that has not kept up with inflation. The extra costs downloaded onto them by the provincial government — increases in MSP premiums, hydro rate increases and carbon taxes, as some examples. The inevitable results are cuts to services and deterioration of learning conditions.

There are 16,500 classes in British Columbia with four or more children with special needs, an all-time high. At the same time, the number of classes with an assigned special education assistant went down by 400. So the statement by the Premier two years ago that class size and composition was her number one issue rings hollow.

I’ve spoken about the lack of respect for teachers by this government, but I want to conclude by contrasting the provocative, unproductive and often confrontational approach with that shown by the Burnaby board of education. During the education strike, the Burnaby board repeatedly urged government to adequately fund education, to bargain in good faith with the teachers, to stop the rhetoric, and reverse the acrimonious relationship. They called for maturity and respectfulness. Good advice.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, I am very pleased to speak this morning to the motion that has been put forward by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake. That motion is: “Be it resolved that this House consider referring the issue of the impacts of class size and composition on the learning outcomes of British Columbia’s students to the Select Standing Committee on Education.”

[1120]

First, let me say that one thing all of us in this House can be proud of is that students in our education system are succeeding with outcomes — importantly, that is the ultimate measure — that are among the best in Canada and around the world. This, for one, is because we have an education system that strives to motivate talented and engaged students through an outstanding delivery by teachers and involved, committed parents and by establishing links to dedicated educational partners.

I’m also reminded that we are investing record levels of money in our public education system and supporting capital projects in public school districts across this province. In the school district that covers my own riding — school district 34, of which I am immensely proud, in particular for their ability to get such great outcomes consistently year after year — we have put $1 million in funding for capital projects just this last fall. This is funding that went toward rooftop improvements, air unit upgrades and hot water tank replacements at places such as Centennial Park Elementary School, W.J. Mouat Secondary School and Blue Jay Elementary School. Capital projects improve the longevity of our schools so that we can make use of them for a much longer period of time.

We are investing a record $5.1 billion in public education this year, and that’s up $110 million over last year. Notably, for the first time in a decade, we are now seeing enrolment increases across the province. Still, our average class sizes are well below the legislative cap on class sizes.

Let me just give you some specifics on that. For kindergarten, our legislative hard cap on class size is 22 students, yet our average is below that, at 19.7 students for this year. For grades 1 to 3, where the legislative hard cap is 24 students, our current average is below that, at 21.8 students. For grades 4 to 7, with a cap of 30 students, we have an average class size of just 26 students. And for grades 8 to 12, which have a cap of 30 students, we see an average of 23.4 students across the province, well below the cap.

Most class sizes that have over 30 students have only 31 students, and those classes are predominantly to accommodate students who are taking classes in grades 11 and 12 so that they can graduate.

Within our record funding to school districts, we have included extra funds to support each and every student with special needs. The decisions on individual classrooms are very specific and are made at the local school district to reflect the diverse needs of students.

We have the $100 million learning improvement fund that has helped school districts to hire additional teachers and support staff this year. The learning improvement fund supports school staff to address complex class composition issues. This allows school districts to use funds to address these issues specific to their schools and hire teachers and educational assistants to meet complex needs. This allows teachers to tailor supports to the unique needs of each classroom. As a result of the learning improvement fund, 98 percent of all classes have 30 or fewer students today.

All of that said, we must always have in mind that while class size and composition are important, the research clearly shows that the greater impact comes in successful learning and achievement through the quality of teaching that is provided every time a teacher walks into a classroom. That our students do so well speaks volumes for teachers in this province. We should all be very proud of them.

J. Wickens: Public education is something that I am incredibly passionate about. I have had the pleasure, over the past five years, of speaking to many parents, teachers and support staff, and I have two school-aged children in our public education system. I have one child with considerable learning needs and one child without.

[1125]

I’m grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of this motion today. I was actually completely shocked to find out that the Select Standing Committee on Education has not met since 2006. I have to say that I think it is a huge disservice to the children and students of British Columbia. I happen to believe that education is a foundation of a strong and resilient society. As a parent and education advocate, I find the fact that this committee has not met for a decade completely unacceptable.

I’m going to speak today mostly on composition challenges in our classrooms and how the thinning of student supports in our classrooms negatively affects all students. It’s important to note that you can’t talk about one without the other. Larger classes, for the most part, have more students with needs in them.

Without funding for adequate specialized supports, this negatively affects all students. What we see right now in our schools is that decisions about student support are more often being made with regards to administrative pressures. We see decisions being made about student placement that are, unfortunately, contrary to the School Act and not at all individualized.

Our Education Minister has tried to defend a practice of lumping students with special needs together, also known as piggybacking support in the classroom. He’s tried to do this by somehow trying to get us to believe that this is a local decision based on what is best for students.

Let’s be clear. There is no data to suggest that this is good for students. Principals and teachers are forced every day to make decisions based on funding, not on the individualized needs of students. In fact, we have no data whatsoever to show how close to 20,000 students with identified needs are doing in the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 10796 ]

These students are students who are most affected by this practice of lumping individuals together. They are individuals with intellectual disabilities. They are students with chronic health impairments. They are students with autism spectrum disorder, students who are deaf-blind or students who are physically dependent. These students are not tracked. We have no idea how these students are doing in our current system.

This government would like us to believe that forcing many students to share support because of cost pressures is a good thing. What parents and teachers and people across British Columbia are saying is that it is not. We know that inclusion is a good thing. It’s good for all students, both with and without disabilities. However, if you do not fund education appropriately, you force districts to consistently cut services for our most vulnerable students. Everyone is going to feel the negative effects of that.

Specialized education for students who need it is not a disposable luxury. For many students, this is the ramp to access their education. The B.C. education plan continually speaks about the importance of personalized learning. In order for that to happen, it is essential for students who require it to have individualized support — support based on assessment and the identified needs of those students.

I can tell you, as a parent and someone who has been in a number of school meetings, that this is not happening under the current funding structure.

It is time for the Ministry of Education to address the fact that many students who need individualized support are not getting it. It’s time for the Ministry of Education to listen to the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Finance who have consistently called for increased funding and supports to improve class size and composition. It’s time for this government to task the committee on education to look into these issues and report back to the House.

It’s what’s good for our children and our classrooms.

D. Bing: On behalf of the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to take part in this debate.

[1130]

The single most important investment we make in life is the education we give to our children. It is more than a gift. Education determines the outcome of society and our common future as a whole. We all have a stake in education, and we owe it to our young people to give them the best start in life that we possibly can.

Naturally, not all students learn the same way, and each student has their own unique set of interests. That is what makes class size and composition so important. It is the reason why the government invested a record $5.1 billion in public education this year. That is $110 million more than last year. As a matter of fact, we are investing $1.47 billion over the next three years to replace, renovate, expand or seismically upgrade K-to-12 facilities.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the site of a future state-of-the-art facility, Smiling Creek elementary school in the community of Burke Mountain, along with the Education Minister, the member for Peace River South. Students and families will soon benefit from this new $20.5 million school, thanks to a partnership between the government of B.C., the Coquitlam school district and the city of Coquitlam.

This 3,700-square-metre, two-storey school will provide 430 student spaces, including 80 kindergarten and 350 elementary spaces. This is a perfect example of how partnerships between government and school districts can produce outstanding results. The project is expected to go to tender in the spring of 2016, and the school is scheduled to open in September 2018.

This is an example of how our government is committed to ensuring that B.C. kids have the best opportunity to succeed in the classroom. New facilities, like Smiling Creek elementary, will bring a new and modern approach to class size and composition. From this school site in Coquitlam, the Education Minister drove out to my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, where he toured Albion Elementary School and Thomas Haney Secondary School.

Thomas Haney is not your typical high school. You could be forgiven for mistaking the wide hallways and large open spaces for a university campus. Twenty-four years ago, the school helped pioneer a new teaching model, one that offers fewer structured classes and more free time, where students learn at their own pace and have more of a say in what they are learning. The self-paced model at Thomas Haney was designed to better foster creative problem-solving, time management and lifelong learning.

Anyone who has ever had children will tell you that the self-paced model makes sense. Provincial exam scores at Thomas Haney have been consistently above provincial and district averages. Educators from across the country and as far away as Australia routinely visit the school to see how the Thomas Haney model can be successfully applied elsewhere.

As you know, hon. Speaker, decisions on class composition are best made at the district level by principals in consultation with teachers. Class composition requires professional judgment, discretion and flexibility to ensure the best possible learning environment for students. Factors that are considered include teacher workload and experience, student preferences and aptitudes, social and behavioural dynamics, availability of educational assistants and other supports, and students with identified special needs.

With respect to special needs children, the Ministry of Education is providing more than $866 million to support all B.C. students with special needs. There are 12 categories that cover a wide range of special needs. They range from children and youth with intellectual and physical disabilities to gifted students, to those with sensory, emotional or behavioural challenges and those
[ Page 10797 ]
with particular health concerns. In fact, since 2001, funding for students with special needs has increased more than 60 percent.

These are just a few examples of how students are succeeding in British Columbia, with outcomes among the best in Canada and, indeed, the world.

Deputy Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, and thanks for the opportunity here.

The motion that we’re debating is to refer to the legislative Education Committee the issue of chronic underfunding by this government, leading to classes that are oversized and have more than the allowable number of students on individualized education plans.

[1135]

Now, the Premier of British Columbia, as Education Minister, broke contracts, despite B.C. Liberal promises not to do that. They ripped up contracts, and they did it in such a way that it’s still before the courts. We’ve had numerous rulings that have even said that it was unconstitutional.

Now, we used to have, before the B.C. Liberals, contract language that set in stone the appropriate size of class and the appropriate number of special needs students for a class to operate properly. That was a sensible way of doing things.

The reality is that at that time we had zero oversized classes, and we had zero classes with above the optimum number of special needs students. That’s the reality.

If there was a class configuration that needed to be different than that — say that you wanted 31 for a good reason — then there was a mechanism to do it. I was there in the system. You could have discussions, but it was a discussion between a principal and a teacher that was balanced, so that the teacher could look at the situation, and if more resources would come in and make it work, then it would work.

The decision by the B.C. Liberals was to make these classes dysfunctional, and we have a number of them. We have over 16,516 classes that are structured in a way that they have more IEPs than is educationally sound. That is a decision that this government has made through its funding and through the changing of the regulations. It is conscious.

We have the member for Comox, who was a Minister of Education. He’s sitting right there. He wrote a letter when he was a teacher, and he indicated that he could not function as a teacher because of funding cuts that gave him a class that wouldn’t work.

I have been a teacher and a principal. I’ve done that my whole life. When people ask what I do, I still say I’m a teacher. I can tell you that, regardless of the expertise you have, you need a classroom that is going to work.

We had that. The B.C. Liberals have deliberately undermined it. Regardless of what you say about the funding, the fact is that there are 16,000 classes that the B.C. Liberals have chosen to make less than optimum, and they have chosen to sacrifice the education of those students. It’s a conscious choice.

They will say they’ve put money…. Where have they put the money for sure? They have put it to the richest 2 percent, with a tax cut of $250 million last year, this year and going forward.

If they intended to deal with this situation, they would have. “Why are they deliberately doing these things?” you would ask yourself. Well, the reality is that this is a government that is not committed to public education. That is not their agenda. Like many right-wing governments, their agenda is completely separate from that. You see it day after day in the classrooms. You see it day after day.

The least that we could do, if we had a committee system that was working and if there was any serious interest from government, would be to sit down with an all-party committee and look at what is an ongoing and incredibly serious issue for our public education system.

That these members will say no to that idea is because they sit with a government that does not believe in public education. At its core, that is the reality to it. The fact that we still have a very good education system in B.C. — and we do — is nothing to do with this government. It’s just that in the ten to 12 years, or however many years, they’ve been in charge, they still have not completely broken the system they were handed.

We are blessed with fantastic educators who toil on, despite this government’s insults, which are regular — the lack of materials and support that they should be receiving. Despite all of that, they still turn out a good product and do the best for their students.

Let’s be clear. This is a conscious decision by this government to regularly underfund classes, and it is the children, ultimately, who have had to deal with that. We have a whole generation that have gone through the whole school experience here in British Columbia and, in my view, have been let down.

At times, we’ve had members from that side talk about individual instances, sometimes in their own families, where they feel that they’ve been let down. But they can’t put together, in some way, that it is their decisions as government that have led to those things.

Thank you, as always, for the opportunity.

M. Dalton: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. Sometimes when I hear the NDP speak, I’m wondering: do we live in the same province? But we do.

[1140]

I just want to, for the record, say that the government has put…. We have a record amount being invested in education — $5.1 billion, and in this last year, a $100 million lift. That’s in spite of the fact that there have been approximately 60,000 to 70,000 fewer children in our system.
[ Page 10798 ]

I will say, also, that we’re in the midst of the longest negotiated settlement in British Columbia’s history. That’s very positive. My recollection — when the NDP was in government and I was teaching; I taught for 15 years prior to getting elected — is that it wasn’t such a flowery experience then also. There was a lot of labour strife during that time.

I also want to state that British Columbia has an excellent educational system — one of the best in Canada and in the world. This is borne out by international longitudinal studies in education such as PISA, which is the program for international student assessment. They assess math, science and reading scores compared to jurisdictions throughout the world. Canada, and British Columbia in particular, ranks on top — right at the top category.

There’s a reason why so many international students come to B.C. It’s the quality of education. I met with a supervisor with Maple Leaf schools. Now, Maple Leaf schools are not here in Canada or in British Columbia. They are in China, but they use our Dogwood certificate, and they have certified B.C. teachers.

There are about 13,000 students that attend these schools, and it’s the number one — this is as far as they were telling me — school of choice for international programs. That is because we have an excellent curriculum. It’s been developed by our ministry and a team of teachers that have worked on that.

British Columbia has tens of thousands of excellent teachers. I began my teaching career in New West and then moved into school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, taught about half the time, about seven years, at the high school level and then at the elementary level.

It never ceased to amaze me: the talent, the passion and dedication that I saw in my teacher colleagues. Our schools are filled with master teachers. Teachers get into the field because they want to make a difference in the lives of youth. They have a keen interest in their subject matter, whether it’s sciences, math, literature, drama, physical education, history, modern languages, trades, and so on.

Teaching can be a very rewarding profession, and it can also be very challenging making lesson plans that are interesting and engaging, and connecting with students who have a different learning style. Teachers are doing this in classrooms and schools across British Columbia.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and myself, on Friday, visited Westview Secondary School for a skills tech competition. Students from different schools in the district were there. I just was impressed about what is being accomplished and the level of skill that is being passed on to our students. There’s high demand for these programs. Afterwards we visited Andy Strothotte’s woodworking shop, with a number of special needs students engaged in projects. I would say that woodwork has come a long ways from the 1970s when I took my woodshop course.

I always enjoy visiting the schools. A while back, as was mentioned, I visited Albion school and Thomas Haney with the Minister of Education and was just impressed with the learning that’s happening in these schools. We have quality teachers, quality learning. Teachers are preparing students for the future.

This motion make mention of classroom size. Research is clear that the single most important factor in student learning is teacher education. My experience was that smaller classes are certainly easier. But at the upper end, whether it be 28, 29 or 30…. I don’t actually recall, perhaps once or twice, having more than 30 in all of the years that I taught. But I found that the difference of one or two didn’t make a big difference; it was more the composition that was the issue.

There are legislative hard caps. For kindergarten, it’s 22 students; grades 1 to 3, it’s 24 students; grade 4 to 12, it’s 30 students. There are some provisions, mainly for high school, to exceed that. But the average sizes in British Columbia are well below these thresholds. Kindergarten is about 19.7 students, grade 1 to 3 is 21.8, grades 4 to 7 is 26, and so forth.

[1145]

S. Hammell: When the Premier says something, one would expect she is being straight and means what she says. A reasonable expectation would be that we could believe her, that we can trust her to mean what she is saying and that we can trust her to follow through on actions from her words.

But not with our current Premier. She is constantly, constantly conning the public, saying one thing and doing another — pretending to care and then doing nothing to prove it, giving with one hand and clawing back with the other.

The Premier has said many, many times — believe me, many times — that the class size in our public education system and the composition of those classrooms was her number one priority, the most vitally important issue for her government. We have a Premier who will say anything at any moment to anyone but won’t necessarily mean it.

The reality of class size and the composition of our classrooms does not reflect that the learning environment of our children is the number one priority of this government, nor is it even close to an issue that is the most vitally important for this government. Looking at the results of the Premier’s number one priority proves you cannot believe one thing the Premier says.

The number of classes in B.C. with four or more children with special needs has gone up to 16,516. And while that’s going up, the number of education assistants has gone down 400. That’s the reality. You can play around with the numbers all you want, but you need to look inside the classroom.

Class sizes have increased. You can play with numbers, but they have gone up. The number of classes with 30 or
[ Page 10799 ]
more students has increased by 25 percent. We have the highest teacher-student ratio in all of Canada. So that is the most vitally important issue to this Premier. With the elimination of classroom limits on children with individual education plans, teachers are being faced with a dramatic increase in the number of students with complex behaviour and learning issues in their classes.

I spoke with one teacher who has been teaching for almost three decades in the Surrey school district. She thought, as she became more experienced and her expertise increased, that she would be more effective as an educator, but unfortunately, because of class composition changes, she now has a social studies class of 30 students, with 11 requiring an individual education plan, two English-language learners and many more who are supposed to receive learning support. That means over half of the students in the class require a specialized approach to their learning. A decade or more ago these children might each have had an education assistant to help them with their education, but due to cutbacks, that’s only a distant memory.

Another Surrey teacher told me a heartbreaking story about his class. He has multiple students with learning and comprehension problems, some who require specialized equipment to support or help them read or write exams and do assignments. But due to a lack of these supports, these students have to go without and just hope for the best at exam time.

Look, we are talking about real kids, real supports and real learning assistance that’s needed in the classroom. You can’t just ignore this and say: “Everything is wonderful.” Children are falling through the cracks every day in our school system.

[1150]

In the past, when our children had access to the proper supports, a child with complex behaviour and learning problems could overcome these issues in elementary school and, by the time they were in the high school, would grow into an effective learner. So I do support referring this motion to the Standing Committee on Education.

G. Hogg: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion that “the impacts of class size and composition on the learning outcomes of British Columbia’s students” be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Education.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I believe that education certainly is the foundation of our economic competitiveness, our social well-being, and some people have even argued around the world that it is an important underpinning of democracies and maintaining them and developing them.

I’m always intrigued in this Legislature when we stand up and we have very smart, involved and passionate people on both sides of the House who seem to be divided down the middle with respect to these issues, whether that’s something that observers call confirmation bias or if there’s, somehow, a set of values that separate us in some way. But it is always intriguing that that seems to happen.

There’s been a great deal of research on the issues of class size, class composition and learning outcomes. In fact, in researching this, I found that many of the experts argue that it is the most studied educational issue of the past century, and experts say a greet deal with respect to what we should or could be doing.

Certainly, if we were allowed props in this House, I’m sure each of us could lift up and show volumes of information, volumes of studies, done by recognized experts. Again, it may be that the experts that we look at are the experts that seem to have come to the same conclusions reflecting our values that each of us have.

What, in fact, does the research say, recognizing again that issue of confirmation bias with respect to the research?

Well, firstly, I think that it suggests that any single or even dual policy change having any dramatic impact on outcomes is antithetical to the whole notion of policy coherence.

It shows that the rankings of how our province is doing and how Canada is doing is extremely well — when looking across the OECD countries and the issues contained in it — with Japan ranked with an A, Finland with an A, and B.C. ranked third behind those two countries, then Ontario, Alberta and then Canada, as a whole, ranking sixth. Certainly, in terms of the measurement of those outcomes, as has been pointed out by many speakers, we are doing extremely well.

Thirdly, it says that the quality of teaching has the greatest impact on achievement.

Fourthly, reducing class size will have little effect without enough well-qualified teachers. Evidence to date suggests that smaller classes across an entire system are probably not the most cost-effective way to improve student outcomes when compared with, for example, investing the same amount of money in improving teaching skills.

This issue is not a part of this motion, yet the research that I have been able to look at suggests that it, in fact, may be the most important part of achieving some of the outcomes which are proposed within the resolution.

In British Columbia, we’ve been fortunate to have a number of people come here who are recognized as international experts. I had the privilege of meeting with Charles Leadbeater a few years ago. He’s a recognized expert who’s been throughout the world, visiting and commenting and advising with respect to educational programs.

He looked at our programs in British Columbia and gave high praise. He said that certainly his concern, if
[ Page 10800 ]
we had to focus, should be on aboriginal education, particularly on-reserve aboriginal education. That’s an area that he felt that we could and should be focusing on more effectively.

Sir Ken Robinson, who is well-known for his comments on education — also a Brit, who is now in California and has a written a great deal with respect to education — says that the most important thing in education, in his opinion, is to personalize it, not standardize it, that we must move away from the notions of standardized approaches and find personalized ways to deal with it.

[1155]

Madame Speaker, you host a group of teachers from across the province each year, who are selected from their school districts for their expertise. They’re supported by their school districts, and they come and spend a number of days here to look at what we do as a Legislature, and we have the chance to hear from them with respect to their issues regarding education.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Hogg: Thank you very much for the opportunity to almost get talking about what I wanted to talk about.

R. Austin: I’m delighted to be the final speaker in this debate, and I speak strongly in favour of the motion brought forward by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake: “Be it resolved that this House consider referring the issue of the impacts of class size and composition on the learning outcomes of British Columbia’s students to the Select Standing Committee on Education.”

I’m going to carry on from where my hon. friend from Surrey–White Rock spoke a few minutes ago, about the hyper-partisan nature of this chamber and how it is that good people of sound mind can come in here and argue so strongly about whether the wall is black or whether the wall is white. But in fairness to his comments, outside of this chamber a lot of agreement happens. Let me give an example.

As everyone knows, the Select Standing Committee on Finance tours the province every year to find out what British Columbians think should be the priority of this government in terms of bringing forward the next budget. That takes place outside of this chamber. I should mention that it has a Liberal Chair, a government Chair. It has, always, a majority of government members on it, and they go around and listen to what people have to say.

I have to congratulate them, because outside of this chamber, backbenchers on the other side have a completely different point of view. The legislative standing committee on Finance has gone around for the last three years, and it’s had very strong recommendations — which, by the way, have been reached by consensus with New Democrat members. Here’s what they say.

November 2013 report, item 27: “Review the increasing demands on school district budgets and ensure that funding is appropriately directed to meet the growing support required for students with special needs.” November 2014 report, item 24: “Provide support for proposed new K-to-12 initiatives such as personalized learning.” Recommendation No. 25: “Provide resources to identify and address the growing number of students with special needs and those with minimal English language skills.”

Then just last year, November 2015, the select standing committee came up with this report and this recommendation: “Provide stable, sustainable and adequate funding to enable school districts to fulfil their responsibility to continue to provide access to quality public education with recognition of the increased costs that school districts have incurred.”

So in reality, given a slightly different venue, the government members do recognize that there is a serious problem in our school system. In spite of everything that is going on, in spite of the fact that teachers are working hard, at the end of the day, whether you’re a teacher or whether you work in the medical system, professionals will always go above and beyond to do the best job that they can, and we see that every day in our school system.

Let’s get away for a second from the numbers and just the pure statistics. Let’s look at the number of librarians and the number of libraries that have had to close in the last 14 years. Let’s look at the number of counsellors — those specialized teachers who help kids who either have emotional problems or learning problems.

Let’s look at the number of special ed teachers, who are there to support the classroom teacher to give some new strategies for a child who has some form of learning disability. Look at things like audiologists or speech pathologists. Nobody in British Columbia can argue that those levels of specialized teachers have been seriously cut in the last 14 years as a result of the budgetary constraints in our public education system.

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada