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)

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 37, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know every member in this House is supported by family and extended family. I am delighted today to introduce my lovely wife, Charlene. She and I will be celebrating our 49th anniversary next month. She’s joined by our youngest son, Phil, who I’m very proud of. He’s an amazing man in our community and in our family. He’s joined by his friend Josh Charles. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce someone to this House who has given her daughter, and raised her daughter in such a wonderful way that she’s just full of love, full of compassion. She works in my constituency. She’s my constituency assistant. Emily Zimmerman’s mom, Hazel Whittaker, is in the House. Please help me give her a warm welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to introduce Mr. Daljit Sidhu. Daljit Sidhu is a longtime friend of mine and my constituent in Vancouver-Fraserview. Daljit is well known to people in Vancouver — in fact, in the Lower Mainland. He owns two insurance locations of his insurance business, S&S Insurance. He’s here as an executive member of the Insurance Brokers Association of British Columbia.

He’s a founder of the very well-known Punjabi Market, which is in Vancouver-Langara. He is extremely active in the South Asian community, in fact so much so that he’s on the list of 100 prominent South Asians. But as I said, for me, he is a friend and a constituent. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Ministerial Statements

SARAH BECKETT

Hon. C. Clark: This is a sad day for a lot of us in British Columbia as we reflect on the sacrifice that Const. Sarah Beckett made through her work as an RCMP officer. Thousands of people in British Columbia don a uniform every day and go to work and do the work, on our behalf, that we do not do, that many of us would not have the courage to do. They take on that job. They know that it’s risky. Every day they stand between us and sometimes a very violent, uncivil society.

We are very lucky to have police officers like Sarah Beckett and the thousands of other police officers and first responders in British Columbia who do so much to make us safe.

We all know that Constable Beckett died recently. We all know that she leaves behind two small children and a husband who loved her very, very deeply. I don’t think any of us can truly appreciate what that loss has inflicted on that family.

All of us in this House have seen the incredible outpouring of grief. People lining the road — 3,000 people over the weekend, and many more today. I and many members of this House will be joining them as we honour her memory.

For those who are first responders and fellow police officers themselves, it will be a chance to pay tribute to a beloved colleague and a friend and someone they knew as a loving mother with a bright future ahead of her. For her family, it’s a chance for them to see all of us coming together and honouring her for her heroism. I hope that if there is one thing that her children will always know, it’s that their mother was a hero.

[1010]

Last, for all of us, it will be a chance to reflect on the sacrifice that first responders and police officers make every day on our behalf and a chance, perhaps, to remember, when we see a police officer, even if we don’t know them, to stop, take a moment and offer them a sincere thank-you for what they do for us every day.

M. Farnworth: I would like to join with the Premier in her eloquent comments and pay tribute, too, to Sarah Beckett, a mother of two small children with a husband, a family, and a police officer, an RCMP officer, an individual who took pride every day in going to work to do a unique job, keeping our communities and our province safe — a job, as the Premier said, that most people aren’t able to do.

It was a job she had done since 2005 and a job that she loved. No doubt she went to work that morning expecting to come home and see her kids and her husband. Tragically, as sometimes happens in that line of work, she didn’t. We mourn that loss.

Later today, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, members of this House, thousands of British Columbians and the RCMP will pay tribute to her life, to her sacrifice. It is something that all of us should reflect on today and every day — that those men and women who protect our communities deserve our utmost respect, because too often they pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, if I might ask you to join with me in a moment of silence in her honour.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]
[ Page 12070 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EAYEM MEMORIAL

S. Fraser: On Saturday, I had the honour of attending an important ceremony in the Fraser Canyon. At 10 a.m. Saturday morning, First Nations leaders, elders and youth from the Yale First Nation, Stó:lō Nation Chiefs and Stó:lō Tribal Council met off Highway 1 up the canyon past Yale, near Bell’s Crossing at a site known as Eayem. Eyém means “lucky” or “strong,” in reference to the fact that it is a very productive fishing ground with the salmon fishery that spans millennia.

The main reason for the meeting was to commemorate the restoration of the Eayem monument marking a very important village site that is also the location of both an ancestral burial ground — and the fishing ground, of course.

According to Grand Chief Peter Dennis Peters, between 1883 and 1885, the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway went directly through Eayem, resulting in the original Eayem burial ground being completely destroyed. Hundreds of remains of ancestors were disturbed from their resting places, placed in four large wooden boxes and relocated, resulting in a mass reburial at this place where we stood on Saturday.

The purpose of the memorial is not only to pay proper respect to the memory of the many hundreds of ancestors who are still buried there but also to emphasize the existence of the Five Mile native fishing grounds and the five ancient cemeteries that are also in the area.

There was another reason that this ceremony was so important. It was the beginning of the healing for the Yale and Stó:lō, following a very divisive treaty process that divided communities, family and friends. Although the Yale treaty was ratified several years ago, the current Chief, Ken Hansen, his council and his community have set aside treaty in favour of healing the wounds the treaty opened wide.

Treaty cannot be about creating winners and losers, and I applaud Chief Ken Hansen, his council and the Stó:lō leadership for coming together to teach us all that wisdom.

FORT ST. JOHN FLYERS

P. Pimm: It’s been a great few days for hockey in British Columbia and in this Legislature. We have seen Lumby awarded Hockeyville. Just this past weekend we saw 100 Mile House win the Junior B provincial championship.

[1015]

I’m pleased to rise in this House to speak in celebration of my local hockey team, Fort St. John’s senior Flyers. The Flyers won their second consecutive Coy Cup championship on March 26 in Terrace in an extremely exciting game.

In 2015, the Flyers beat the River Kings in the Coy Cup final in Fort Nelson. That was the first time the team had ever won the B.C. senior AA provincial title.

The final game this year was a close one, 3-2, as the Flyers beat the Terrace River Kings. The Flyers played their hearts out. The winning goal came from North Peace Hockey League MVP Rick Cleaver, with a great wrist shot.

I know just how hard it is to win the Coy Cup because I personally played for the Fort St. John Flyers back in 1982 when we lost the final game in the Coy Cup to Quesnel by the same 3-2 score. That was 34 years and 50 pounds ago, but I still remember it like yesterday.

Hockey is a huge part of our culture in Canada. It’s great that residents are provided with the wonderful entertainment that events such as the Coy Cup have been giving us since its inception in 1922. Congratulations, Fort St. John Flyers and tournament MVP Tyler Loney. Best of luck next year when you go for the three-peat.

JIVANA ORGAN DONATION SOCIETY

H. Bains: April is Organ Donor Month. Nearly 500 British Columbians are on the wait-list for an organ transplant. Many will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Over 1,600 Canadians are added to the organ wait-list each year.

“Live life; give life.” This is the theme for the Jivana Organ Donation Society. Jivana was founded by four individual recipients: Jas Gill, liver recipient; Sunny Tutt, heart recipient; Jagtar Gill, liver recipient; and Jas Oberoi, heart recipient. Their mission is to raise awareness primarily in the South Asian community about the importance of organ donation.

If you are of South Asian descent, there’s only a 4 percent chance of finding an organ donor. The key requirement for a successful organ transplant is that both the donor and the recipient share the same blood type. Jivana is committed to help educate people and help them to make an informed decision about registering as an organ donor.

Statistics show that a person is more likely to need an organ transplant than to be an organ donor. Ninety percent of Canadians support organ donation, but less than 25 percent are registered donors. Many organs are lost because the decision of loved ones is not known to their family. If you wish to become an organ donor, I urge you to register with the B.C. Transplant Society or, at the very least, make your wishes clear to your loved ones so that they can make appropriate decisions when the time comes.

I would like this House to join me in commending Jivana for the outstanding work that they do to bring awareness of this very important issue. As they say: “Live life; give life.” Thank you, Jivana.
[ Page 12071 ]

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR HOMELESS AND
LOW-INCOME CHILLIWACK RESIDENTS

L. Throness: The Salvation Army does tremendous work in Chilliwack. I recently had the pleasure of touring their complex. In addition to daily meals offered to anyone in need, they stock and manage a food bank. They give out free clothing. They run a large thrift store. They maintain Cartmell House, an 11-bed homeless shelter. Most recently, a kind citizen donated a large and costly new trailer, built to provide outdoor meals. Many thanks must go to these good people and to the host of volunteers who regularly donate their time to assist the most marginalized in our society.

The Salvation Army cooperates with the provincial and federal governments in providing for the homeless in Chilliwack. Together in 2014, the government spent nearly $7 million on the most needy in our community; $1.7 million of that went to emergency shelter and housing for the homeless. About 150 people benefit from that on an ongoing basis.

Last year the province provided 28 extreme weather response beds at the Ruth and Naomi’s Mission and the new Cyrus Centre for youth. We also funded a homelessness prevention program and a homelessness outreach program.

But we do much more for lower-income families. We provide subsidized housing and rent supplements for more than 1,300 households in Chilliwack; 219 families enjoy social housing. Another 738 families benefit from rental assistance in the private market. Frail seniors, women and children fleeing violence and people with special needs are included in this category.

For the homeless to transition to a more secure and stable lifestyle, we will need continued housing supports as well as more long-term treatment leading to freedom from addictions to drugs and alcohol. Our government is committed — together with generous private partners like the Salvation Army — to the day-to-day work of assisting the homeless as well as to their long-term future.

[1020]

BROADWAY YOUTH RESOURCE CENTRE

M. Mark: I’d like to share a few words about a beacon of light that has been shining brightly in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant at the corner of Broadway and Fraser since the 1990s.

The Broadway Youth Resource Centre opened its doors to serve as an integrated one-stop shop that provides a range of social, health, education, housing and life skill services to homeless and at-risk youth. This inclusive, all nations, award-winning, multi-agency model was built to serve young people in a seamless way so that young people don’t have to navigate so many different services provided by so many different service providers in different parts of the city.

At the core of the Broadway Youth Resource Centre is the resource room, where young people can engage with staff and access services, computers, workshops, social events, employment and housing information, food and medical services. More than 6,200 youth access the service every day.

The Broadway Youth Resource Centre is one of four youth hubs in Vancouver, along with Directions Youth Services, Connexus and the Urban Native Youth Association. With homelessness being a key area of concern for youth in Vancouver, the Broadway Youth Resource Centre’s key focus is on helping young people with housing. The Thompson Court program is one example of this, providing 15 units of subsidized housing for youth.

The centre recently partnered with the Vancouver Native Housing Society to provide an additional 30 subsidized units to house youth at the Kwayatsut site. These sites are specifically for youth who are most vulnerable to homelessness: aboriginal youth, LGBTQ2S youth and youth leaving foster care. Kwayatsut is from the Coast Salish language and means “seeking one’s power” or “spirit quest.” The building was named by Chief Ian Campbell from the Squamish Nation.

What I respect most about this centre is that its programming is based on the work of Dr. Martin Brokenleg. The Circle of Courage is about fostering and empowering a sense of belonging, mastery, generosity and independence.

The centre is a beacon of light, and I thank you for the opportunity to shine a light on its leadership and resilience offered by the staff and the young people each and every day.

ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE
IN POLITICAL DEBATE

G. Hogg: With reverence to The Irrelevant Show, what can a dodo bird, a unicorn and a donkey teach us about knowing? I imagine that one of them existed, one exists and that you can ride one.

Imagining and believing something, unfortunately, doesn’t make it so, yet it often feels so. Things are too often not what they seem. The curse of knowledge is our inability to imagine that we do not know something that we do know. It can blind us to understanding the world as others might see it. Does it also impair our ability to develop policy that is sensitive to the perspectives, understandings and feelings of others?

To listen to our debates, one might think so. Societally, never have we known so much. Never have we had more ability to effect change, and never have we disagreed more about what it is that we collectively know and, thus, what we should collectively do.

Mark Kingwell said that grumpiness about the state of political discourse is, in fact, the state of political
[ Page 12072 ]
discourse and that one of the most elusive unicorns of politics is rational discourse — the debate and the argument that might free us from self-delusion and ideological deception.

Productive disagreement is based on a great deal of agreement on facts, definitions and rules of engagement. But reasoning seems to evolve not to find truth, but to help us engage in arguments, persuasion and manipulation. Skilled arguers don’t seem to be after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.

Perhaps irrationality is more like the Easter Bunny than a unicorn, a belief that we fervently hold but eventually outgrow. As Mark Twain explained: “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

It just ain’t so that the dodo bird, the unicorn and the donkey know the present lessons of learning and understanding — that if we don’t imagine and we don’t try, we can become like The Irrelevant Show. Is that the state of political discourse?

Oral Questions

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

S. Hammell: At the current rate, Surrey gun violence will double this year, and the people of Surrey were expecting more from this government than they got with the so-called crime announcement on Friday.

[1025]

It was widely anticipated that government would come up with new resources, with new ideas to combat the escalating gun violence. It didn’t happen. In fact, this government didn’t announce any new resources at all.

In September last year, the New Democrats asked the Premier to speak with the RCMP about deploying resources from across the country. To the Solicitor General: did that discussion ever happen, and will resources be deployed to Surrey from across Canada?

Hon. M. Morris: We want to assure the residents of Surrey that the full force of all resources available to the RCMP are focusing on Surrey, within the province here.

We have increased air support. We’ve increased the number of the CFSEU members, or the anti-gang members, that are working in the province here, focusing on Surrey. We have the combined resources of the emergency response team working in uniform in Surrey, knocking on doors as we speak. They have been doing so for a number of time now. We’ve got access to a number of canine units that are focusing in on the area.

There have been some great results. Just in last few days, there have been another four or five arrests made, focusing in on this particular group of people that are causing this discourse in Surrey. We’re working hard on that, and there will be some results, definite results, showing up shortly.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: We are on the track — in fact, we’re well on that track — for two shootings a week. The Leader of the Opposition and Surrey MLAs sent a letter to the Premier asking her to engage with the RCMP about deploying resources from across Canada to tackle this escalating gun violence. There was no action from the government at that time, and since then, there have been 40 more gun-violence incidents and several deaths.

Again, to the Solicitor General: why were no specialized resources brought in from across this country?

Hon. M. Morris: The RCMP E Division British Columbia is the largest contract division in Canada. There are thousands of police officers in Canada. There are thousands of specialized resources available to us in British Columbia.

The resources that we have on the ground are focused. They’re dedicated members. They’ve been doing a tremendous amount of work over the last number of months and weeks, with some great results.

I did make the opportunity for the member opposite and her colleagues from Newton to come into my office, and I would have given them a more in-depth briefing on this subject. However, they declined the opportunity to hold that information in confidence. The reason it was held in confidence is because we didn’t want to jeopardize the safety of the men and women that are doing these critical investigations to keep the people of Surrey safe.

H. Bains: Last week the Premier admitted in this House that her government needed to do more to put an end to the escalating violence in Surrey. She said: “We are going to do more. We will have their backs, and we will make sure that the families of Surrey know that when they send their children home at night, they will get home safely.”

Just like everything else this Premier does — big promise, no delivery, no action. That’s exactly what happened on that Friday. She sent her Solicitor General to this highly publicized press conference.

Police understood that they needed to reallocate their resources, and they did. The city knew that they needed to cooperate with the RCMP, and they made that announcement. The only party that was missing from the action with any substantial offering to bring to the table was this government and this Solicitor General. He had nothing to offer. That is a colossal failure of this government to families of Surrey and….

[1030]

Madame Speaker: Question.

H. Bains: One of their own Solicitors General, the former Solicitor General, had this to say: “The provincial
[ Page 12073 ]
government is missing from this occasion right now and needs to get involved.”

Madame Speaker: Member, pose your question.

H. Bains: He went on to say he’s disappointed with the lack of leadership coming from this government to deal with crime. My constituents, the families of Surrey, are sick and tired of platitudes coming from this government without any action.

Madame Speaker: Pose your question, Member.

H. Bains: The question to the Solicitor General, to the Premier, to whoever wishes to stand up and answer, is this: how many more shootings, how many more lives injured or lost before they will take this issue seriously and come up with an action plan that shows leadership, that shows there’s prevention, there’s enforcement and there is deterrence?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I think people are sick and tired of hearing the NDP deciding that they want to play politics with the safety of the people of Surrey, refusing to show up to a briefing, refusing to keep it confidential when doing anything other than that would put the safety of those front-line responders at very serious risk.

Our Solicitor General has a job to do, and he is doing it well. On Friday, we announced that the RCMP will be able to gather evidence from direct, 24-hour access to over 330 traffic cameras, an additional 75 cameras to be installed soon…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Clark: …increased air support, more CFSEU investigative team members and resources from Lower Mainland canine units. This is in addition to the work that we did, lobbying very hard with the mayor and council of Surrey, to make sure that there were 100 additional RCMP officers located in the city of Surrey.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. C. Clark: This is a very serious problem that the people of Surrey are facing. They deserve to know that they will be able to send their kids home from soccer or from volleyball or from school or whatever it is they’re doing every day and make sure that they come home safe. They deserve to know that they are as safe in Surrey as anyone else is in British Columbia.

We intend to do everything that we can to go after those low-life criminals who are making life untenable for people in Surrey. We’re going to continue that work. It doesn’t help that the member opposite decides to play politics with it. Nonetheless, we stand with the people of Surrey, and we will be there to make sure that that community continues to become every day more and more safe than it was the day before.

M. Farnworth: When it comes to playing politics on public safety in the province of British Columbia, the only person who knows how to really do it is the Premier of British Columbia. On issue after issue when it comes to public safety in this province, the first line of response from the Premier is a photo op.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s crime in Surrey. It doesn’t matter whether it’s distracted driving, where last summer we had photo ops and an announcement that there were going to be increased penalties. Since then, we have seen nothing but photo ops.

The Premier stands up in this House and goes: “Oh, guess what. The RCMP now have access to 24-hour camera surveillance.” This crime wave has been going on in Surrey now for years. Why has it taken so long for this government to ensure that that’s actually taking place?

Hon. C. Clark: So $60 million annually to the RCMP for the CFSEU anti-gang initiatives; $70 million a year toward the 20 integrated teams, which the member voted against; $26 million since 2006…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Surrey-Newton.

[1035]

Hon. C. Clark: …in civil forfeiture grants, which the members opposite oppose; $5.5 million specifically targeted to support gang and youth crime prevention projects and programs; over $200 million added to the annual policing budget; and the hard work that we did, all of us together, in making sure that 100 new RCMP officers were assigned to the city of Surrey. That is before all of the additional things that the Solicitor General announced Friday, which I have already talked about.

Gangs evolve. Government’s response to those gangs needs to evolve. We do need, though, to make sure that we keep, as a primary consideration, the safety of law enforcement officers in the forefront of our minds at all times. We cannot protect the people of Surrey if we don’t protect the people that are on the ground trying to stop this gang activity.

Despite the drama from the member opposite, this is not politics. Making sure that we grow these budgets, making sure that we grow the number of RCMP that are on the ground, making sure that we grow their oppor-
[ Page 12074 ]
tunities and access to more information is not politics. It’s making sure we are doing what we are supposed to do, which is everything we can, to protect the people of Surrey.

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

PUBLIC SAFETY AND
FORENSIC INSTITUTE SECURITY

M. Farnworth: You know, it’s a bit rich to listen to the Premier want to talk about protecting the people and the men and women on the ground when this side of the House put forward a private member’s bill to ensure that body armour should only be worn by police officers and corrections officers. They mocked it and voted against it.

On to another aspect of public safety, the forensic institute. Over the last seven years, FOI requests have shown more than 200 walkaways from this particular facility, which holds many dangerous and violent individuals. Can the Premier — she’s so concerned about public safety and protecting communities — please inform this House why local communities are not informed when people walk away from that facility?

Hon. C. Clark: It is rich to hear the NDP talk about how they want to try and do more to support policing in British Columbia when in fact it is this government that introduced the first anti-gang unit in British Columbia. It is this government that brought forward all of those initiatives that did so much to make sure that, in that earlier wave of gang violence, we got it under control.

As I said, though, gang activity evolves. They are like weeds in the garden. The garden always needs to be tended, or those weeds will come back. Gang activity and gang behaviour evolves, and government’s response to it must evolve.

We saw some more of the additional work that government is doing on Friday, in addition to all of the other work that I’ve already outlined, much of which the NDP opposed in this Legislature. We are going to continue to do more to make sure that we protect the people of Surrey and ensure that not only do they live in a beautiful, thriving, diverse community; they live in a safe community.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING

R. Fleming: The latest preliminary budget of the Vancouver school board projects cuts of $25 million to classroom resources for kids. The cause of these cuts is the funding policies of this government — millions of dollars in cuts for so-called administrative savings, a failure to fund MSP hikes, B.C. Hydro rate hikes, a $1 million hit for the next gen network, unfunded salary adjustments.

The list goes on and on into the tens of millions of downloaded and unfunded cost pressures onto school boards like Vancouver. Make no mistake, learning resources will be stripped out of classrooms to pay for this government’s failure to properly fund public education in Vancouver and regions right across the province.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. Instead of denying, even mocking, the impact this government’s cuts will have on Vancouver kids, families, teachers and school support staff, will he finally accept the open invitation he’s received to meet face to face with Vancouver school board trustees, show respect for that elected board of government and work with them to avoid cuts that will hurt our kids?

[1040]

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, one of the things I’ve done when I took on the role as the Minister of Education is travelled around the province meeting with school districts right around the province. I want to correct the member opposite yet again in this House. Vancouver school district is one of the ones that I’ve already met with face to face, and I had some great discussions with them.

But we look at Vancouver specifically. They have an opportunity this year again, which they could have acted on in past years, to save $37 million of taxpayers’ money that they can keep to put into classrooms for programs to help students. Those decisions are made at the local level. We had Ernst and Young go in and look at their books. We had them come back with a report that showed an opportunity to save $72 million — again, to help the students in British Columbia.

Stacy Robertson from the NPA — I want to thank him. He’s a board member in the Vancouver school district who actually has looked at this and has come out publicly, as a Vancouver board member, and said that this is the result of inaction of the Vancouver school board themselves in past years of not making the proper decisions when they have 6,500 fewer students enrolled in the school system. Those are decisions that the school district needs to make to make sure that money is going to the classrooms to help the students in that district.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Once again the minister trots out declining enrolment as the only woe to the Vancouver school board system. The reality is that declining enrolment has plateaued. It’s over in Vancouver. It’s going down by 200 students next year before it gets set to grow. It’s something else. It’s about the underfunding of public education by this government — period. The minister is the only one who believes his own budget hype. Maybe that’s why this government is spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising instead of funding kids in public education.

The people who are really involved, in schools and communities, in public education — whether it’s the
[ Page 12075 ]
towns that have been forced to watch their schools be closed in this budget cycle or whether it’s more than a thousand parents expected tonight at a district meeting — know the real record of this government. That’s the fact that under this government, under this Premier’s watch, we’ve gone from the second-best-funded education system in Canada to the second-worst.

The parents that are going to the meeting tonight are going because they know that these cuts will have real impacts on their children’s education. My question, again, to the minister is this: will he finally start listening to districts like Vancouver which are telling him that his budget is failing kids and families in their community?

Hon. M. Bernier: An increase of $1.2 billion to the Education budget. We continue to have record investment. This is continuing while we’ve had 70,000 fewer students in the province of British Columbia. The Vancouver school board themselves have seen a decline in students again this year, year over year since 2001.

We have 6,500 new students in the province of British Columbia, though. They’re moving to the province of British Columbia for the great opportunities, for the great economy. Those are opportunities that are going to make us continue to invest in the education system.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: In our budget again this year, we committed to making sure that every one of those new students will be fully funded in this year’s budget.

You know, we work with Vancouver school district as best we can. They’ve got lots of work to do in that district. When you look at schools’ undercapacity…. If I was a parent in the Vancouver school district, my to question the school board would be: “What are you doing with a half a billion dollars a year of taxpayers’ money, and are you making sure that that money is going into the classroom to help my student?” That’s what we expect them to do.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
COSTS AND FUNDING

G. Heyman: What the Minister of Education characterizes as a good discussion with the Vancouver school board, the Vancouver school board characterizes as a one-way conversation in which the only acceptable answers are his. Parents consistently tell me they’re sick and tired of being forced to fund basic school needs, everything from computers to photocopy paper. They’re sick of having to fight time and time again to maintain music programs, and they’re tired of having to fight to protect critical services like special education assistants.

[1045]

Whether it’s in my office or at parent advisory council meetings, parents across Vancouver are clear. It’s not the fault of the Vancouver school board; it’s the fault of this government downloading costs onto the district. When will the Minister of Education stop spinning numbers and give Vancouver’s schools and kids the funding they need for quality education?

Hon. M. Bernier: What we’re seeing with this line of questioning, especially coming from a member from the Vancouver area, is that they’re willing to waste more taxpayers’ money on empty seats, on schools where there are no kids in the classroom. That money needs to go into classrooms where there are students. We have parts of the Vancouver school district….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. M. Bernier: The Vancouver school district is down 6,000 students. What that means to the hon. members across is that there are a lot of classrooms empty. There are schools that are half-full. That is not a good use of taxpayers’ money.

In fact, again, the parents of Vancouver expect more. They deserve more. What they need is for the school district to be making proper decisions to make sure that money goes into the classrooms — $37 million of money that is being spent a year on empty classrooms that could go into programming to keep arts programs open and to keep music programs open in schools that are full.

Those are decisions that are left with the school district to make, and I’m hoping that they will make the right decisions.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Spending on children’s education isn’t a waste. It’s an investment in their and our future.

It’s no surprise that this minister’s answer to problems in funding education in Vancouver is the same as this government’s approach to balancing the budget. Sell the assets for one time, and who cares about the consequences?

It’s not just school programs at risk in Vancouver. Because of this government’s failure to provide adequate funding, the Vancouver school board is being forced to look at closing 12 schools and repurposing many others in the hottest real estate market in North America. These families don’t want to lose the schools that are close to their kids’ hearts and that play a valuable resource role in every neighbourhood.

Like school districts across B.C., Vancouver is forced to take the best of a bad set of options to public meet-
[ Page 12076 ]
ings starting this week — cuts in support for gifted kids in inner-city schools, literacy and sports programs. What new excuse would the Minister of Education like me to take to parents tonight who are sick and worried about the future of their kids’ education?

Hon. M. Bernier: The message the member opposite can take to the parents of Vancouver tonight is that the NDP are willing to waste taxpayers’ money.

I also want to correct the member. What I did say…. He can ask….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll correct the member opposite again. He asked a question and didn’t listen to the answer. What I said is it’s not fair to waste money on empty classrooms in Vancouver. That to me and to this government is what’s important — that the record investment that we have in education is going to help students. That’s why we have some of the best outcomes in the world. We are investing record amounts of money. We have amazing teachers in the province of British Columbia. We continue to have that. Another $110 million in this year’s budget is going into education.

When we look at the outcomes we have in the province of British Columbia, record outcomes…. We’re the envy of the world in what we have here in our education system, with our outcomes, and that’s because of the decisions that are made on this side of the House.

MANAGEMENT OF TransLink PORTFOLIO
BY MINISTER RESPONSIBLE

D. Eby: The Premier, in a mandate letter, “decided to place responsibility for TransLink with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.”

[1050]

I asked the Minister for TransLink questions during estimates. I asked about the total compensation for the TransLink board, and he said: “I don’t have the facts on compensation….” I asked if he could answer questions about bus service levels, and he said no. I asked why the $50 million handyDART contract seemed to suggest the contractor wasn’t providing the number of bus hours they’d committed to, and he said: “I don’t have the detail in terms of a breakdown.” The minister couldn’t answer questions about audits of TransLink, about transit police, about spending on the transit referendum. He didn’t even know what the ridership numbers were for TransLink.

The minister gets an extra $51,439 to be the Minister for TransLink. That’s not free money. He’s expected to do his job. Can the minister tell this House why he should be able to keep that money when he doesn’t know the first thing about his job?

Hon. P. Fassbender: In estimates, the member was leaping all over the place. Truly, most of it was a leap backwards, as is exemplified by the fiscal policy of the members opposite.

Let me say this. Very clearly I said to the member: “My job is not to manage TransLink. My job is to ensure that the money that the province of British Columbia invests is being well spent.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Vancouver–Point Grey.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I made it clear to the member that my expectation, the government’s expectation, is to ensure that the Mayors Council, the board that they appoint and the management of TransLink look after those details, and I have the confidence that they are doing that.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Let’s talk about the minister’s expectations. The TransLink fare gate project was supposed to be finished in 2008 for $80 million to $100 million — delivered two weeks ago, eight years late, double that original estimate. “Where is the fare gate spending now?” I asked the minister. “I don’t know where the…budget stands….” Will the minister demand a report from TransLink about why the project was eight years late and tens of millions of dollars over budget? “I have no expectation to demand anything…” of TransLink.

Now the media reports that anyone with a smartphone can reprogram Compass cards to ride for free. The Transportation critic in 2012 told the government about this, told TransLink about it. They had three years to fix it. They didn’t fix it.

With disasters like this and a minister who knows nothing, can the Premier explain why this person is still the Minister for TransLink?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I find it very interesting that the members opposite, who constantly are trying to find what’s wrong, do not focus on what’s right. What is….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is clear…. The very same members who criticized TransLink for fare evasion are
[ Page 12077 ]
now criticizing them because the fare gates are working, because the public is seeing that it is a good system, that they feel safe on the system. Fare evasion is going away.

Yes, there are always challenges with technology. TransLink is committed to making sure they deal with those issues. I, again, have the confidence that the operational aspects of TransLink will be looked after.

[1055]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 12.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Routley: This, section 1, is about amendments to the definitions of a variety of sections by adding a reduction. We’re talking about a reduction in cut. Could the minister give us an overview of the purpose for all of these reductions that are referred to in this, and a little bit about the background of where this thinking came from? What is this about?

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the discussion. Before I respond to the first question, I’ll just introduce the staff who are supporting me here — Tom McReynolds, who is our manager of legislation; Shawn Hedges, who is the senior manager with B.C. Timber Sales; and Kelly Finck, who is the tenures forester with the forest tenures branch.

As you know, this legislation deals with a number of pieces of legislation in terms of the Forest Act, the Wildfire Act and the Wildlife Act. We’ll be making some changes to staff complement and support as we move through the sections. We’ll try to stay on top of the introductions as we do that and to manage that efficiently.

The member opposite asked around the first part, section 1 — which is, as he pointed out, bringing in a section which refers to reductions under a number of sections. The existing definition, the current definition, supports voluntary disposition agreements between non–B.C. Timber Sales and B.C. Timber Sales licence holders and is used to define the means by which accessible annual allowable cut is determined for a tree farm licence, for a community forest agreement or a First Nations woodland licence.

What the amendments here do is account for a volume reduction for the purposes of disposition through a B.C. Timber Sales licence, whether that is from a tree farm licence, from a First Nations woodland licence or from a community forest agreement. These are new subsections. They’re consequential to the new provisions in this bill that require that reduction when implementing and moving forward with a disposition agreement.

As we pointed out in the introduction and in the comments around second reading, it is to help balance competing objectives for communities and First Nations, where there is a need to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales has access to a sufficient supply of timber to meet its market pricing obligations while looking to achieve community objectives in finding these new opportunities, where a portion of those licences may be worked through in a disposition agreement with B.C. Timber Sales.

All of the first parts of this section bring that provision in, to be able to apply that reduction, in order to move forward with that objective.

[1105]

H. Bains: Let me ask some basic questions here before we get into the definitions. We dealt with Bill 25, and Bill 25 dealt with involuntary reduction and takeback. What was the purpose of leaving this portion out of Bill 25? Why could this not have been dealt with through Bill 25? Now you’re talking about involuntary reduction. Bill 25 talked about voluntary reduction. So why keep them separately? Why were they brought in, in two separate bills?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to member opposite for the question, because it is an important question.

It was not included, originally, in Bill 25. The focus of Bill 25 was to prepare and set the legislative foundation for timber disposition agreements. We knew then that we needed to take it in a stepped and incremental process. The reason at the time, when Bill 25 came in, was that not all the policy work had been completed in terms of being able to move forward — where you wanted to use it on a directed basis, as opposed to a strictly voluntary basis.

The current proposal for the reduced volume for the non-BCTS licence…. It’s a progression of the concept that builds on the structure of Bill 25. This will give us the additional tool to look at these and to be able to move forward with these opportunities where they make sense on the landscape.

So it was a stepped, incremental process in response to the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. Bill 25 was the first step. This is now the second step.
[ Page 12078 ]

H. Bains: If I get this clear, this issue could have been dealt with under Bill 25. You only dealt with one part of the issue, which was the voluntary piece of timber reduction from non-BCTS timber holders.

This one talks about involuntary reduction. The government could come in and either put…. I guess there are some sections coming up, provisions when they issue a new licence — the involuntary piece where a minister or B.C. Forest can make the decision as far as the reduction of the timber licence.

It could have been dealt with in Bill 25, and the minister chose not to. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: It relates back to…. The answer really was in the first answer I gave, as this being a progressive step. The member opposite is correct in a sense. It could have been accomplished in Bill 25, because it did set the foundation for disposition agreements.

[1110]

In Bill 25, it was kept on a voluntary basis, so that you could continue to do it on a voluntary basis. In the policy, moving to the next step required additional consultation with the industry. It required additional level of comfort with the industry around the approach to the disposition agreements to move to the step where it could be used as a tool and where it could be done on an involuntary basis rather than a voluntary basis.

We wanted to get the framework in place. We wanted to work through it on a voluntary basis. Then we continued the consultation discussion with the industry, with the stakeholders, around the next step in having the ability to utilize this tool on a directed basis as opposed to a voluntary basis in certain and limited circumstances where it may make sense.

H. Bains: Okay. We’ll be getting to the real content of this bill.

Section 1. It talked about essentially changing the definition, amending the definition of “allowable annual cut available” in three different areas of the act. The first one, under (a), is by adding the subparagraph: “(i.1) a reduction under section 35 (1) (n.1).” And (b) talked about adding the subparagraph: “(i.1) a reduction under section 43.3 (1) (g.3).” And then it goes on under (c) — “allowable annual cut available” — changing the definition of that or amending the definition “by adding the following subparagraph: (i.1) a reduction under section 43.55 (1) (h.2).”

Maybe the minister could explain each one of them, each one of those sections. When we are changing or amending the definition of “allowable annual cut available,” how does that differ from what is already in the act? When you add this amendment, how does that differ from the act that is today? How does that affect those who will be affected by this?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just, again, to go back. The three sections that the member opposite referenced…. One is the reduction requirement that would relate to a TFL. The other is to a community forest agreement. The other is to a First Nations woodland licence.

What these sections bring into the definition of the annual allowable cut…. The annual allowable cut sets the amount that’s available. If you are going to have a disposition agreement where you reduce that amount available, you have to have the provision for it in the legislation. The three different sections refer to the three different types of licences.

It wasn’t required in the voluntary approach. That’s why it’s brought in, in this legislation. There, the licence holder is voluntarily giving up the right. He didn’t require the ability to have a reduction specified in the annual allowable cut definition. That’s why we brought it in. It’s simply for the three areas where those disposition agreements would take place.

[1115]

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain under what circumstances the minister will exercise his or her rights, or the chief forester will exercise his or her rights, given that these amendments are being made in those three different areas.

Hon. S. Thomson: This really is the heart of what is being proposed here or what the amendments to the legislation provide for. What we are doing is providing the tool where we’re trying to balance competing interests on the land base.

We have B.C. Timber Sales in volume. We have a requirement to maintain levels of volume and meet our market pricing system requirements under B.C. Timber Sales. We have an objective of wanting to establish more community-based tenures on the land base, whether they be new community forests, expansion of existing community forests where they’re looking for increased volume in terms of being able to have a viable level. I hear from many community forests that we’ve provided opportunities. While many are very successful, they’re looking for more volume.

We’re trying to establish First Nations woodland licences. When we’re dealing with a constrained land base, many people look to B.C. Timber Sales as the place to be able to provide some of that additional volume. So instead of looking to create a lose-win situation in terms of taking directly from B.C. Timber Sales in order to establish the new licences, what we’re looking for, under this approach, is the win-win approach.

We can take some of the B.C. Timber Sales volume in a disposition agreement and be able to provide that through those other licences — be able to have some of that volume reserved for, in a sense, B.C. Timber Sales — and have the new licence get some of the benefits of the
[ Page 12079 ]
B.C. Timber Sales disposition to help with their viability. So we’re creating in those…. Limit those opportunities where it will make sense to do it. We’re creating what we view as a win-win opportunity to meet both objectives.

That’s what the intent of the legislation is to do. It was previously voluntary and now, as we move forward to try to do some of those, moving it towards where it can be directed. In some cases, to be quite frank to the member opposite, there will be some resistance on the part of B.C. Timber Sales to giving up that volume unless we can find the win that meets that objective and achieves our other objectives. We wanted to be able to have that tool where we could do that and meet both objectives.

H. Bains: Maybe I’m missing something here. We are talking about a reduction of timber from a TFL or from community forests or First Nations woodlots.

[1120]

We’re talking about a reduction. And then the minister brought BCTS into this, although there’s no mention of BCTS here so far.

Is the minister saying that if, under certain circumstances, the timber is reduced, through this new provision, from whether it is a tree farm licence or community forest or First Nations woodlot…? Why would you reduce, and why would they agree? I mean, you would put a provision in here now. Because it’s involuntary, you could force an order reduction. So what is the purpose?

You take timber away. You’re talking about a reduction here. You’re taking away from them. And what are you doing with that timber? What is the purpose of reducing? Is it adding to the BCTS a total AAC?

Hon. S. Thomson: Hopefully, I can clarify why. I think the member is asking: why do you need the reduction? The way this would work is that you would look for a new or an expanded CFA opportunity — we’ll use a community forest as an example; the same would apply for a First Nations woodland licence — where you would provide that licence to them at a volume, whatever that volume is determined, to provide a viable opportunity for that entity.

[1125]

Then you would reserve and take some of that back into a disposition agreement. The volume is actually with the community forest. Then the reduction is applied in terms of the amount that they can utilize by having it come back to B.C. Timber Sales for auction and utilization to meet our market pricing objectives. Then there’s an agreement that, in doing that, some of those benefits from the B.C. Timber Sales sale and process would flow back to the community forest.

The volume is actually held by either the community forest or the First Nations woodland licence, and the arrangement goes back the other way. What you’re doing is then having to have a reduction in the amount of the community forest volume that’s available to them to put back into the disposition agreement. That’s why it’s set up with having the ability for a reduction.

H. Bains: Maybe I could put this in a real example. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway reminded me. Let’s use Canfor, for example. They have a tree farm licence. They used to have a sawmill in South Vancouver called Eburne sawmills — no longer there. They’re out of the coast for all of their solid wood. Eburne was the last mill that was shut down.

For example, if the minister decides that there will be a reduction in one of their tree farm licences…. There has to be a purpose. The purpose is to maintain BCTS AAC, because it is being reduced because of certain reasons.

Why would you bring it into BCTS by reducing someone’s TFL or community forest or from the First Nations? Why would you do that?

The purpose, I think the last answer of the minister suggested, is to maintain BCTS. I understood the answer to be the BCTS total AAC for the year. But is the reason behind that because BCTS may not have enough wood available to go for public auction? Is that the reason behind this?

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to point out that…. Firstly, I think the member opposite will have looked through the legislation and understood or realized that this only applies to new opportunities going forward — so new First Nations woodland licences, new community forest agreements, expansion of community forest agreements. It’s not that anything on existing licences would be done under the voluntary approach.

In order to find these new opportunities and to get these new opportunities, what you have to do is reapportion B.C. Timber Sales apportionment in the apportionment decision. They have an apportionment that sets out their share of the AAC in that area. We generally try to keep B.C. Timber Sales overall volumes at around 20 percent of the AAC in those areas. That’s the benchmark or the target.

[1130]

In order to find these new opportunities, where you’re looking to create the opportunity in a scarce timber supply area, in an area that has constraints, B.C. Timber Sales has the volume that provides us with the opportunity to do that. You would reapportion the B.C. Timber Sales volume, reduce the B.C. Timber Sales apportioned volume in the area to be able to provide that opportunity, whether it’s X cubic metres of opportunity in the community forest or in a First Nation woodland licence.

Then you would have a disposition agreement to be able to provide some of that volume back to B.C. Timber Sales, reducing the overall volume in the community forest or in the First Nation woodland licence under a disposition agreement. Then there would be a negotiated
[ Page 12080 ]
agreement between B.C. Timber Sales and the entity that would provide a benefit to the community forest or to the First Nations woodland licence for that disposition back. Pointing back, again, that’s why we have the ability to reduce. That’s why you have that reference in the definition to be able to reduce that AAC that’s apportioned into those licences.

I’ll just use an example. We’ve got a commitment up on Haida Gwaii, for example, with the Misty Isles Economic Development Society for an 80,000-cubic-metre community forest agreement. We’re having a great deal of challenge in landing that agreement and meeting that commitment in order to provide that opportunity there. The only way to get there in that volume is to be able to look to B.C. Timber Sales operations there to take a portion of that volume and to put that volume into the community forest agreement.

Then you would have a disposition agreement back to B.C. Timber Sales in order to maintain the volume and the pricing points that we need to make in order to maintain the integrity of the market pricing system. It’s why there is a provision in here for reduction, to be able to reduce that volume in the community forest agreement as part of the disposition agreement.

It’s a workaround. It’s a technical process that provides us the ability to do that and to create those opportunities where there are current limitations and be able to land those opportunities.

H. Bains: I’m just trying to understand this so the people who are watching understand exactly what is happening here.

Going forward, I get that, if there are new licences issued — whether it’s a community forest or a First Nation woodlot or through TSA — there will be provisions in that agreement where the government will take back or reduce their AAC. But I’m just still puzzled by the purpose.

The minister has tried a few times. If the purpose is to maintain BCTS at 20 percent, then tell us. Or if the purpose is you take away from a licence…. I’m talking about the future, going forward. A certain amount comes to BCTS and is added to someone else who is being issued a new licence. Is that what is behind these definition changes and why these definitions are being amended?

[1135]

Hon. S. Thomson: Hopefully, I can clarify here for the member opposite. Maybe I’ll just try to simplify it and go back to the basics here and see if that works.

What we’re trying to achieve here…. Again, to be clear, this is on a go-forward basis. It’s on new opportunities, new licences. We wouldn’t utilize this on an existing licence unless there was consent. So you could have the disposition agreements under an existing licence with agreement and consent of the licence holder.

But going forward, this is dealing with areas where we’ve got scarce fibre supply. We’re looking to try to provide the opportunities for community forests, First Nations woodland licences. The only way to be able to provide it in a meaningful enough way to be a viable operation is to take a volume from B.C. Timber Sales.

We would take volume from B.C. Timber Sales, provide it as part of the licence and the terms of the licence and conditions to the new licence that they would have that volume. Then there would be, as part of the terms and conditions of that licence — in providing that licence — a disposition agreement that would provide part of that volume that you’ve provided to the licence back to B.C. Timber Sales to auction, to be part of meeting their market pricing requirements.

That would be established in the licence as part of the negotiation, the regulation of the value and the benefit that B.C. Timber Sales would have to provide to the licence holder in order to be able to get that volume back that they could auction and that they could use as part of the market pricing system and getting the auction points. They would pay a benefit to the licence holder, whether it’s a community forest or whether it’s a First Nation, for being able to provide a portion of that volume that they would have and be given in their licence for that purpose.

It’s really about trying to meet the two objectives with, in a sense, the same cubic metre. We’re trying to provide the benefit to the community and the community forest or the First Nation. We’re also trying to make sure that we maintain our market pricing obligations.

[1140]

So take from one, provide it in the other, and get a portion of that back in some way that helps us maintain that integrity of the system through a disposition agreement.

H. Bains: That’s exactly what I thought you were saying. You take it away from one…. We’re still talking about going forward, if there are new licences issued. If the time comes that BCTS, the minister or the chief forester wants to make a decision that some reduction will take place from one of those new licences to create a new one, you then have this arrangement that a portion of that comes back to BCTS to maintain that 20 percent.

Another scenario would be that you have issued a few licences, there’s another one that needs to be issued, and BCTS takes part of their portion and gives it to the new licence. Now, because they don’t have 20 percent, they are clawing back or taking back from one or two or more of those new licences to bring it back to auction through BCTS.

Basically, you are taking it from one to give it to someone else, or you’re taking out of BCTS to create a new licence and give it to somebody. But now, because you have gone below 20 percent, in order to maintain that 20 per-
[ Page 12081 ]
cent, you have this ability to reduce part of their licence by a certain amount so it comes back to BCTS. BCTS maintains the 20 percent, and the benefit that comes out of that portion that BCTS is using goes back to that community or that licence holder — right?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite has it essentially correct. What we’re saying is that it’s in order to provide opportunities for expanded community forests — with existing community forests or new community forests — when we’re looking to find First Nations woodland licences and areas for First Nations woodland licences. Under the provisions here, it would be an apportionment that is currently being provided to B.C. Timber Sales under the apportionment decisions that you make when you allocate the AAC for an area.

You would take some of that in order to provide the opportunity for the community forest. As part of those terms and conditions, there would be an amount that is provided back to B.C. Timber Sales to be auctioned in order to maintain the price, as I said. That would be done for a benefit to the community forest or to the licence. B.C. Timber Sales would have to pay some benefit to the licence holder in order to do that.

[1145]

So the benefit does go to the First Nation or it does go to the community for doing that. B.C. Timber Sales has the volume to auction that meets the market pricing points and keeps enough data and integrity in the system to maintain our market pricing system. If we just simply used B.C. Timber Sales where we have the volume available, took from them and provided it through these opportunities without having that pricing integrity, then over time, we would erode the B.C. Timber Sales volume and erode the integrity of the market pricing system. So that’s the basis. It is for a benefit, but it does mean that the benefit goes to the community forest or goes to the First Nations woodland licence.

I’ll use another example. I’ll just use it theoretically. We’re looking to find an opportunity for an expanded community forest operation for a community that’s also working in partnership with a First Nation. We found some volume that we can provide to it, but it’s only X amount of cubic metres — only 15,000 cubic metres, for example. Their view is that, in order to be a viable operation, they need 25,000 to 30,000 cubic metres. We can find some of that volume, potentially, to provide into the community forest if some of it can be done under a disposition agreement that would provide that back to B.C. Timber Sales for the auction purposes.

The entity — the First Nation partnership and the community partnership — would benefit from that by being paid for that disposition agreement and providing a portion of it. The benefits and a portion of the returns flow back into that community or into that community partnership or directly into that First Nation.

H. Bains: I’m still trying to figure out the intention behind this. I understand how this will work. I think we’ve gone over that. The intention behind this…. Under the current system, you have BCTS, who have access to 20 percent of our forest through their AAC. They utilize that for public auctions to set the market pricing. I get that.

But at the same time, we also have First Nations woodlots. We have community forests and the tree farm licences. If everything was fine, you would allow them to continue on the work that they’ve been doing in the past. The licence holders will benefit by utilizing their AAC on their own.

This way, as I see it…. You have only so much timber. In order to meet the demand of a certain group or community, you’re taking something from somebody who already owns it — I’m still talking about the future — to give it to them through BCTS. But BCTS, again, will maintain 20 percent.

Again, I don’t understand it. Why would you take it away from somebody to give it to someone else? We are creating winners and losers, not win-win. Although yes, you said that when you’re taking it away from them, you are compensating them for that portion. They get benefits as a result of that, because BCTS is using that portion. But they can do that on their own as it is, so how are they gaining?

If they have 50,000 cubic metres and BCTS decides to take 10,000 to give it to another licence…. As the minister has used in the example, the community and the First Nations, they needed more than what you could find. So you take 10,000 from this licence and give it to them, and then the benefit will go back to them for those 10,000 through BCTS — whatever benefit BCTS can generate.

How are they gaining? How are you saying that there’s a win-win situation? It is a win-lose situation. Maybe the minister can explain, if that’s not the case.

[1150]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the win-win in this, essentially. The win is finding…. Again, to point out that this is not something that works in every situation. It’s not something that’s going to be widely deployed and utilized. It is in those unique opportunities where we have a real scarcity of volume in order to be able to provide these opportunities.

The win is to the community, to the First Nation, to the community forest agreements. They get a licence that has a higher level of volume in it than we might be able to provide for them otherwise — or maybe not provide to them at all, in some cases.

While B.C. Timber Sales is giving up some of the volume they have under their apportionment, the win to them is that they can do that and provide it to that. They get a portion back to be able to utilize in the market pricing system. The win on that side is that we maintain the integrity of the market pricing system while still being able to provide those community benefits.
[ Page 12082 ]

The other choice is simply to say sorry to the community forest opportunity. “We just can’t find it, and we’re not prepared to work out this kind of an agreement with B.C. Timber Sales. The volume has to stay with them. They have to auction it. You don’t get any benefit.” So we’re working through this to find a way that has that win.

You could probably argue that the win for BCTS is not quite the same as for the community, but we want to try to provide these community forest benefits. We see the benefit in doing that. As part of the other opportunities, you get other ancillary benefits for it. There are opportunities, as part of the agreement, to have joint planning, joint work, between the licence holder and BCTS in doing that — contract opportunities. So there is a benefit overall.

Again, limited circumstances, not utilized in every case. I gave the one example, and I gave another theoretical example, which is a little more than theoretical because it is something we’re working on to find an opportunity there and find a way to do that.

I think this additional tool, set up on a voluntary basis, now set up in a way that, on new licences going forward…. You can direct it, put the licence terms and conditions in, set the benefits that would be paid to the licence holder, to the community forest or to the First Nation, for providing that disposition opportunity back. All benefit. We maintain the integrity of the system.

There is an objective that, as part of this, is maintaining a level of volume in B.C. Timber Sales that keeps the integrity of the market pricing system.

[1155]

H. Bains: I understand the part when BCTS gives additional volume to a licensee. I get that. But having the ability to reduce someone else’s AAC is the area that I’m talking about.

There are two licensees, licensee A and licensee B, and there’s BCTS. So B needs additional timber, and BCTS says: “We have only so much. We don’t have it.” You take it away from licensee B so that you are able to fulfil the ability of the minister’s wishes to give it to licensee A, as the minister has explained.

What is there for licensee B? You’re taking away from them. There’s a reason that you have put the word “reduction” in here. You’re amending the definition of reduction so that you have the ability to reduce licensee B’s AAC so that you could, through BCTS, give it to licensee A.

Licensee A is benefiting. I get that. There’s a benefit. There’s a winner. BCTS is not losing anything, although we’ll talk about that. They probably will be losing something out of this. But licensee B is losing, because you’re taking it away from that licensee.

What is there for licensee B, who could easily manage its own affairs and generate revenue without the interference of BCTS? Now you’re taking a portion of it and giving some benefits back to them, which may not be equal to what they already had managed.

Maybe the minister could address that side as well — where the timber is coming from, where the reduction is taking place.

The Chair: Noting the time.

H. Bains: Is he going to answer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Noting the hour, perhaps the best thing to do is to take that question and respond to that when we resume. It will take, I think, a little bit more of an explanation.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $5,571,246,000.

The Chair: Do you have a statement, Minister?

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll quickly start off. I’m looking forward to the next couple of days, really looking through, diving into the questions and working with the mem-
[ Page 12083 ]
bers opposite, answering questions around the Ministry of Education.

I’ll introduce a couple of staff I have with me right now. We have ADM George Farkas and my DM, Dave Byng. Behind me we have Jen McCrea as well, and we have other staff that will be coming forward, depending on the questions that hit the floor here.

I’m looking forward to, as I say, the next couple days and some great discussion.

[1105]

When we look at the education system right now in the province of British Columbia…. As the minister now for about the last eight, nine months…. Time does fly. I’ve enjoyed all of that, getting out around the province, meeting with parents, meeting with the students in the classroom — more importantly, the fun part of the job, playing with the students in the classroom. It’s been an amazing experience.

I’m looking forward now to discussing it a little bit more in depth over the next couple of days.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for his opening comments. I echo his sentiments that we will have a chance to have some productive discussions, I hope, over the next couple of days that get into some of the details around what is the second-largest ministry in the government.

I think it’s probably a safe prediction to say that we will disagree on several issues and interpretations of facets of his budget, his government’s budget. Certainly, we are looking for critical information about many of the programs, be they on the capital side or the operational side of government, that fund a very diverse and complex school system across the landscape in British Columbia.

We will try and use the time wisely so that we can talk about challenges that face inner-city schools, rural schools that are threatened with closure. In some cases, decisions have already been made to close schools, in some instances, that are at capacity.

I think at the outset…. The minister has made a statement. I will simply make this statement. We think that this budget is causing incredible hardship for parents and kids around the province right now. The evidence is all around us. There are literally thousands of parents and kids and civic leaders and entire communities mobilizing around trying to save their schools or prevent cuts and the loss of programs in British Columbia today.

You could not ask for, I don’t think, a more unsettling and unpredictable environment than the K-to-12 education system right now. There is fatigue and exhaustion in the K-to-12 system, and you need to only look no further than the minister’s own service plan.

The most important user group, if you want to use that terminology, is the students themselves. When you look at declining confidence in whether students are finishing school feeling that they are now able to meet the challenges this world presents them, they feel that the education system is letting them down. For the minister to actually roll back the performance goals for student satisfaction and those kinds of outcomes I think says a lot.

The fact of the matter is that B.C.’s school system cannot maintain or improve itself with a funding increase that is less than 1 percent for the public school system. The cost pressures are immense. The problems are well known to this government.

We have a government that talks a lot about co-governance with school districts, but when it comes down to budget-making, it’s high-handed and unilateral.

I think what’s disappointing so far is that many, many school districts — we will raise some of their concerns in this process over the next couple of days — feel that the Ministry of Education, this government, is not taking into account their circumstances, that they’re not understanding and not interested in listening to severe problems that are opening up in communities in regions right around British Columbia.

School districts feel that their reward for being the most efficient school districts in the country is to receive another year of administrative savings cuts — $54 million, in all, over the past two years.

Now, what that actually means in a small district with a few thousand students — typically, a district already looking to fund the initiatives and programs it has in place — is that it has to cut something like $400,000 just for administrative savings. Often that amount of money is exactly equal to the savings achieved by closing a school, and that’s what’s happening in British Columbia in town after town after town.

The so-called administrative savings cuts — the so-called low-hanging fruit, to use the term of the Premier — isn’t there and hasn’t been there for a decade or more.

[1110]

Low-hanging fruit is programs that support kids. Low-hanging fruit is teaching jobs; support staff jobs; school buildings, which in some cases are at capacity, being shut down and withdrawn from communities. We have towns, significant regional economic hubs, in British Columbia right now where they are losing the continuum of K-to-12 education in their centres. That’s devastating for them.

Around this budget, we hear the talking points of this government that you have to wait for the economy to get better before you can have a school in your community. Well, for many communities, it’s the beginning of an economic spiral downward that will compromise their economic development plans, their ability to recruit families, to retrain skilled workers, to attract jobs, businesses and investment in their communities if they can’t offer K-to-12 education for those families that would otherwise move to and build a life in those communities.

Again, problems well known to the government, an opportunity in this budget to address some of them, whether it’s on the operating side or whether it’s even on the capital side.
[ Page 12084 ]

Last year when we were in the estimates process, we looked at the three-year service plan. Capital funding was estimated to go to $541 million this year in an attempt to address some of the backlog. When it came to actually delivering a budget this year, that amount was tens of millions of dollars lower.

We have overcrowding in Surrey and the Tri-Cities area, some of the fastest-growing regions of our province with schools that are at 130 percent capacity. In Surrey alone, if you took the number of students that study in portables, they would be the 24th-largest school district in the province — 7,000 kids in portables. They can expect to be in portables, in some cases, their entire school career in our school system, and there isn’t a plan in this budget to make significant progress on that.

Seismic mitigation. This government has promised it time and time again over the last decade. The Premier herself is personally taking on this issue, telling parents and kids out there that there’s nothing more important than the safety of our children, drawing the province’s attention to what has happened in New Zealand and other jurisdictions where school buildings have collapsed and failed and where there have been life and safety issues.

We live in the same kind of fault zone here in British Columbia. Parents have been promised something for years and years now, yet the seismic upgrading plan is hopelessly behind. It’s been pushed back, in the case of Vancouver, by a decade, and at least five years in other parts of the province, like the school district that I represent. And this budget won’t get us caught up on the seismic side.

I don’t want to speak longer than the minister in his opening remarks. I would….

Interjections.

R. Fleming: Is it too late? I have lost my timepiece, apparently, to judge that.

I want to get into some of the areas of the top line, I suppose, to get the minister’s response on some of the key elements of the budget. I think I will begin by asking him around the public school instruction budget, which is obviously the major Vote 19 area of the budget document before us. Because he’s made an announcement recently, if he could update the estimates that were provided when the budget was tabled around where the estimate stands for the 2016-17 fiscal year at this point in time.

[1115]

Hon. M. Bernier: The member opposite will know — because, obviously, we just read out, pretty well, that number on the estimates to get it on the floor here to start the debate — that the public school budget for this year increased again, so it’s $5.088 billion.

R. Fleming: I’m just looking at the breakdown where it talks about public school instruction. The net in 2015-16 in the minister’s budget document says $4.622 million, and the net estimate of the budget that was introduced into the House in February says $4.672 million for the 2016-17 year. He made an announcement on April 4. I want to get an updated number, if there is one available. On this specific item, whether that’s public schools instruction or whether it comes somewhere else in terms of…. Well, I don’t think it fits anywhere else in the budget other than in public school instruction.

Hon. M. Bernier: Just to clarify, then, for the member opposite and just to make sure I have the actual question straight and that I’m giving the appropriate information for him, if we’re looking at specifically just public school instruction, it is $4,672,375,000. What we did under the different subvotes…. When we’re talking about all of the other components that are built in under the number I gave you, that also is administration, and it’s also the learning improvement fund. That gets to the number that I stated, the $5.088 billion.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I’m looking at the resource summary, so that’s the number that the minister has just quoted from. But I didn’t hear him answer the part of the question on whether the April 4 announcement, which is about anticipations about additional enrolment growth next year, has been adjusted for the September 2016 school year and whether that is recorded in the resource summary under public schools instruction or under another area.

[1120]

Hon. M. Bernier: Specifically to the member opposite’s question, when you’re looking at the April 4 announcement and looking at the final summary, there were additional funds that were added that were announced on April 4 to make sure…. With the growing enrolment that we have in the province, we want to make sure that we’re fully funding those students. We’ve committed to fully funding those students.

As the member knows, in September, when school opens again is when we do the student count. Those numbers will be reflected then on the anticipation of what our enrolments will be but, more importantly, around the commitment that we have stated that we will be fully funding those students.

R. Fleming: Well, let me try this. If I’m understanding the public schools instruction budget, over the course of the service plan, it goes up by approximately 1 percent this year only. In the 2017-18 fiscal year, it’s projected to go up only 0.7 percent. In the third year of the service plan, it goes up by 1 percent. So something like a 2.7 percent increase over the next three years, when I think the
[ Page 12085 ]
government’s overall budget assumptions around the rate of inflation is 6 percent.

When there are negotiated obligations for teachers and support staff and now executive and excluded staff at school districts greatly in excess of this; when there are well-known cost drivers throughout the provision of public education, either for human beings earning a salary and delivering the services or whether it’s for the supplies that go into public education — 2.7 percent in public school instruction budgets over the next three years. Am I reading that correctly, in the face of all the anticipation around rising costs, in terms of how this budget is to be allocated?

Hon. M. Bernier: I didn’t want to pull out a calculator to question whether the 2.7 percent is the accurate number or not. I’ll take the member’s word on the line that he’s looking at. Really, the public school instruction line I believe he’s referring to — what that is offsetting is the commitment that we’ve made that we’ll be fully funding the teachers’ contracts. The references to the increases that he sees on that specific line item are reflective of that arrangement.

R. Fleming: I guess my question, to follow up on that, would be the other groups of employees that are part of providing a school education on a daily basis.

[1125]

The support staff contract that was negotiated under the so-called cooperative gains mandate — which I believe was a 3.5 percent salary lift for CUPE special education workers as well as school administrative staff, clerical staff — was not funded by the Ministry of Education and entirely borne by, again, internal savings of the school district.

Most recently, the allowance by the Public Sector Employers Council. Again, the provincial government finally lifted a nine-year freeze on principals and vice-principals — 2 percent in the first year. I forget the subsequent years offhand.

Are those unfunded costs included in the public school instruction budget part of the funding envelope here under this item in the budget?

Hon. M. Bernier: I just want to correct the member opposite. If we’re looking at this year’s budget specifically, CUPE, under that wage settlement, is covered in this year’s budget. That is taken care of.

Regarding the principals and vice-principals…. I believe you brought that up too. That funding there…. It is expected that the school districts will be using their existing operating grants that they get to fund those modest increases that those principals and vice-principals received.

I think it’s important to also mention, though…. There are a lot of other increases that we’ve given to school districts this year. In fact, most recently, we’ve talked about an increase with students where we’re fully funding. Because of that, another $20 million is being rolled into funding for the school districts. The commitment that we’ve made as a ministry and as a province is to ensure that all of these new students are being fully funded, when it’s 6,500 new students coming to the province of British Columbia.

I know that the member opposite might canvass this later on in estimates. I can save him the trouble, but he’ll ask, I’m sure, later on about Syrian refugees. We’ve committed to the same funding for them as well.

[1130]

I think it’s also important to remind that we have also fully funded the economic stability dividend. This is all funding that’s going to ensure that the commitments that we’re making, with the great relationship we have with the school trustees and with all of the other different sectors that we have…. We’re making sure we’re meeting our commitments, working under our co-governance model, making sure that we have that great relationship with all of our sector partners to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of students.

R. Fleming: Just moving away from public school instruction and looking at the budget in its entirety, which is inclusive of even independent schools, the entire ministry budget, 2016-2017, is $5.609 billion.

Now, I know that the minister has, on a number of occasions, used statistics that harken back 15 years to make it look like there’s a substantive increase in funding or, to use this phrase, record levels of funding, which the simple march of time would produce in any area of government.

It’s $5.609 billion in the 2016-17 budget year for the Ministry of Education. In 2002-2003, the Ministry of Education budget allocated $4.861 billion — if his staff can confirm that number.

The interesting thing, though, is that in real dollar terms adjusted for inflation, the budget this year would have been $6.292 billion in constant 2016 dollars. So what we’ve actually seen, looked at this way, is a reduction in constant dollars of $683 million, or 11 percent.

What’s interesting now is that B.C. is a richer province than 15 years ago. GDP has obviously grown. The statistic that is interesting to me is that the portion of B.C.’s nominal GDP spent on K-to-12 education as a function has fallen from 3.8 percent in 2002 — just to use the same time period — to 2.7 percent in the 2016 budget. In other words, while the economy has grown in British Columbia, K-to-12 education has had no proportional benefit in terms of the resources supplied.

I guess my question is: why is the mantra of the government around this budget and to communities that are losing schools and seeing programs cancelled that you have to wait for economic growth before you can keep your school? It is a silly argument in and of itself.
[ Page 12086 ]

Why is that the argument the government advances, when the record over the last 15 years is that even if the economy is growing, the amount of funding in nominal GDP spent on K-to-12 education in B.C. is going to go down relative to growth in the economy?

[1135]

Hon. M. Bernier: The member opposite, I believe, is referring to some numbers that were probably shared with him by the parent advisory network — or possibly, he did the work on his own on this one.

One of the things that we just want to clarify is it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Accounting practices have changed since 2002-2003. In fact, if you actually take the base that it should have been…. You are right in the fact that it was 4.861. But there were parts of that which actually were included back then that are no longer included in the budget because of changes in practices.

If you took that and put it to the appropriate base to compare apples to apples with this year’s budget, contrary to your comments, we’ve actually seen an increase keeping up with inflation. We actually have more money going into the budget now than we would have in comparison to what you’re stating.

R. Fleming: Could the minister be a little more precise than the amount of “more money”?

Hon. M. Bernier: Using the analogy the member opposite is trying to do, of the comparison, if we use the same comparison based on the real numbers, it’s actually a base increase of about 1 percent, not an 11 percent reduction.

R. Fleming: I’d like to ask the minister about the next-generation network costs. We got into it a little bit in question period, but he didn’t have the opportunity to answer there, so this provides him an additional opportunity.

Of course, this is provincially mandated. It’s binding on every school district. The costs of the network are to be borne by school districts, although there was an anticipation and a discussion with the ministry that if holdback funding had been adequate — which it was not this year — the ministry would have actually paid for the hardware installation costs of next gen.

I’m just wondering if the minister can give a total cost of what next gen is going to cost all 60 school districts in this year and throughout the life of the service plan. I know that we’re somewhere midstream here with next gen. We’ve got about 50 percent of the schools on line, or more, and we will get to 100 percent by year-end, I think, is what the budget projects.

What are the costs that are to be borne in this budget year by school districts, and where is that funding coming from, in terms of the budget allocation from the ministry? Is there no instruction from government? Or is it just: find the money from your per-pupil funding allocation? Or is there something more specific in terms of ministry direction on where a cost like that — for what is a capital item, really — should come from out of the operating budget?

[1140]

Hon. M. Bernier: I just want to correct the member opposite when we were talking about the difference between the operating and capital. First of all, when we talk about the next generation, the payments that are going really are an operating expense. I’ll use the example, if we’re talking about Telus, of when you go out and buy a cell phone. That’s capital. When you get your monthly bills, that’s operating. There is a difference between the two, obviously.

One of the things we want to make sure we clarify, though, is that with the next-generation network, this is something that we’ve been working on for quite some time. As the member has alluded to, we have committed to making sure that every school district and every school in the province is hooked up with the next-generation network by the end of 2016. I think it’s important that every student in the province of British Columbia has the same equal opportunities when it comes to connectivity and reliability.

That discussion took place with the school districts. We worked with the school districts on this. In fact, the school districts themselves were the ones that were saying: “Look, we need to make sure that we have this opportunity in all school districts around the province.” So it is something that we worked on.

When you look at the next-generation network, as well, and the commitment as government, we’ve got $24.6 million that we’ve put into the next-generation network, ensuring that we’ve got the capital infrastructure and the partnership with Telus, moving forward, for this.

Again, when you look at the operational costs, though, those will be no different than before and no different as when you’re paying any kind of utility bill. That will be coming out of the operating grant that the school districts receive.

[1145]

R. Fleming: Does the minister have any figures about how much the operating cost of the next-gen network will increase over the system that it’s replacing, PLNet? By the way, I would agree with the minister entirely that that system has seen better days. I think it was installed in 1998 or something like that. So it’s a significant boost in technology and the ability to move data and access files that is part of a modern school system.

My questions are really around why, if it’s a ministry requirement, school districts have to find yet another cost to absorb. My understanding is that for most school districts, there will be a significant increase in the annual operating costs to be involved with the Telus system rather than the old PLNet system.
[ Page 12087 ]

I’m wondering if the minister can give a figure that at the very least quantifies what it would be over 60 districts and maybe even some district highlights of what it might mean for a small, medium and large district annually.

Hon. M. Bernier: When we look at…. Specifically to the question, then. For the ’16-17 school year, incremental costs will be around $26 million. We see that going down to $22 million next year, and that is because of the elimination of the PLNet. But one of the things I want to make sure we make clear here is that this was actually requested by the school districts. This was not a ministry initiative per se of saying that it had to be done.

In fact, the school districts were coming to us and saying: “Because of technology, because of advances and because of opportunities, we want to make sure that we have the best connectivity — the best availability to technology as possible and the highest-speed Internet as possible.”

I think I could probably reference back to maybe when the member opposite was either in school or a young lad when he probably had a dial-up system. We have come a long way since those days of the 1990s when we had dial-up systems. Because of that, obviously, there are increased opportunities and increased costs to that because of that opportunity for the schools.

Again, it’s one of those things that from our ministry…. We’ve made sure we’ve listened to the school districts. It’s something that they’ve asked for. It’s something that we’ve committed — by the end of this calendar year, again — that we’re going to try to make sure that every school district is hooked on.

Then, as the member opposite mentioned, PLNet at that point, once fully hooked up, will be removed. Right now we’re running two systems somewhat concurrently, which is why there’s a little bit of an increased cost.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

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