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)

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have a few introductions to make today. First of all, I would like to welcome Stephanie Goodwin, executive director of Out On Screen; Michelle Wilson, parent of B.C. student Tru Wilson — i.e., mom and student; Gavin Somers, Out in Schools program assistant; and Brandon Yan, Out in Schools program coordinator. They came and gave us a lovely lunch to explain what Out in Schools is all about. I’m going to be doing a statement about that in a minute.

We also have several guests from the Association of Book Publishers of B.C., too many to mention, but we would like the House to welcome them.

Last, but certainly not least, a longtime friend of mine, Gary Harbottle is here. Welcome, Gary.

Could the House please make them all welcome to the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would like to join with my colleague across the way in welcoming Tru and Michelle Wilson, Stephanie Goodwin, Brandon Yan and Gavin Somers from Out in Schools. Just a special shout-out to Tru Wilson. She’s an inspiration to so many of us.

I just want to say thank you to the organization for continuing to push for LGBT-inclusive education. It’s a message that we hear loud and clear, and now, hopefully, we can get to some action. Thank you to them.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to thank yourself for making B.C. Book Day welcome. We have the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. here. I want to acknowledge a special shout-out to Margaret Reynolds, their executive director. This is Margaret’s last year as executive director — really large shoes to fill. She’s done so well for our book publishers in this province — for authors, for readers. So on behalf of everybody who loves a good B.C. book, let’s say thank you to the B.C. book publishers and Margaret Reynolds.

Hon. T. Wat: Today I have two groups of guests that I want to introduce to this House. The first group is here today to show their strong support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. They are Christina Burridge of the B.C. Seafood Alliance, Kevin Boon and Brian McKersie of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, Mike Mueller of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada and Dan Baxter of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please make them feel a very warm welcome.

The second group of guests is from the Vancouver branch of the Bank of China (Canada), Ms. Jennifer Guo and Mr. Michael Wu. Jennifer is the senior manager of the Vancouver branch of the Bank of China, and Michael is the head of corporate financial services for the bank’s Vancouver operations.

The Bank of China (Canada) first established its Canadian subsidiary 20 years ago in Ontario and has since extended its operations to ten retail branches across the country. In late 2013, the Bank of China moved their international business centre to Vancouver, where it offers trade, finance and foreign exchange services to Canadian clients all across the country.

Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Jennifer and Michael.

S. Simpson: I know that all members on both sides hold their constituency assistants in high esteem and value their constituency assistants. We in the official opposition do, and we’re very excited that we have our constituency assistants all in town this week for their annual conference.

I know that all of my colleagues wanted to introduce all of their assistants individually and read their resumes into the record, but we are going to try to get to question period before three o’clock.

[1340]

What I wanted to say is a sincere thank-you on behalf of the official opposition, the MLAs, to all of our constituency assistants for the work that they do; for the grace and the decorum that they present in our office, sometimes in difficult situations; and, certainly, for the determination and the commitment that they show every day in the work they do for our constituents in our respective constituencies.

We value that work immensely, we’re really proud that they’re here, and we’re looking forward to getting together later and celebrating that.

Thank you very much to all of you.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to make an introduction to Mr. Vivek Savkur and his friend Kyron De Silva.

Mr. Savkur has been engaged in Canada-India bilateral business for 27 years. He’s a founding director of the B.C.-India Business Network, which is a new, first of its kind, not-for-profit, non-political organization for bilateral trade between B.C. and India. He’s the president, western Canada, for the Canada India Education Council. He’s a director of the Indo Canadian Socio Economic Association. He’s a director of Hope for Orphans Society, an institution for girls of persecuted Christians in India. He’s a former national president of the Indo-Canadian Business Chamber from New Delhi and Mumbai. And
[ Page 12142 ]
he is a member of the India Advisory Council at Simon Fraser University.

In March 2013, he was awarded the very prestigious Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal by the Governor General of Canada in recognition of his outstanding contribution to our country.

He also has some other interests that certainly would catch one’s attention. He was engaged in the first and second Himalayan international car rally and in a car rally in East Africa and in the World Snooker Championship in Mumbai, for those of you who have more indoor sports that you like. Then, of course, he was part of the team responsible for bringing the TOIFA awards to Vancouver in 2013.

An all-around engaged businessman and citizen, someone who loves to promote Canada-India business relationships, would the House please make Mr. Vivek Savkur very welcome.

D. Eby: Today in the Legislature we’re joined by Joe Wiebe. Joe is an author who’s here with B.C. Book Day. He writes at thirstywriter.com. In fact, he’s a wonderful guy, so don’t hate him for having the best job in the world. He writes about craft beer. His book is Craft Beer Revolution. He’s an expert on the craft beer scene in B.C.

Welcome, Joe, to the Legislature, and thank you for all of your wonderful work.

J. Sturdy: We have in the House this afternoon a local government elected official who I’ve known for years and who is a go-to resource for everything Bowen Island. I’m pretty sure that she’s served on Bowen council since the municipality was incorporated in 1999. It seems amazing, but knowing how well Alison understands Bowen Island and its history, it’s not at all surprising to me. Would the House please join me in welcoming to the Legislature Councillor Alison Morse.

C. James: I have three guests in the gallery today. The first is someone who’s been hanging around the building for the last while. Kimberly Copeland is currently studying political science at the University of Victoria. She’s working with our caucus on a co-op term until the end of the session.

I know the person to my right would want me to mention that she is also a constituent of Juan de Fuca and that she also commutes every day from the wonderful community of Sooke. She does work in the community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, so I’d ask the House, please, to make her very welcome.

Two other guests, who I’ll be speaking a little bit more about later. First is the Bishop Logan McMenamie, who is here from the Anglican Diocese of B.C. With him is Victor Flett, an elder and adviser to the bishop. I look forward to more words about that later.

[1345]

S. Hammell: I am pleased to introduce a former member of this House for the Comox Valley, Evelyn Gillespie. She was a member here between 1996 and 2001 and was, for part of that time, the Minister of Women’s Equality. But like Glen Clark and Elizabeth Cull, after politics she went into business and owns the Laughing Oyster Bookshop in Courtenay, and she was here for B.C. Book Day. So would the House please make Evelyn Gillespie welcome.

G. Holman: It’s my pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine, Briony Penn, who is attending B.C. Book Day celebrations in the Legislature today. Briony is an author, naturalist, artist, broadcaster, columnist and adjunct professor at the University of Victoria.

Briony is one of the most influential leaders of the land trust movement in British Columbia. She was a founding director of the Land Conservancy of B.C. and has been instrumental in guiding TLC through a very difficult period in its history so that it can resume its role as one of the most effective land trusts in the province.

To top it off, Briony’s new biography, entitled The Real Thing: The Natural History of Ian McTaggart Cowan, has been nominated for two B.C. literary awards. Would the House please make Briony feel very welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Stefan Jonsson, the director of communications for the B.C. Green Party, who is visiting today. He’s accompanied by his mother, Linda Jonsson, who is retired and volunteers with St. Vincent de Paul and is involved extensively in choirs within our community. Would the House please make them welcome.

Very briefly, I wanted to join my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey in welcoming Joe Wiebe. Now, the House should know that last year, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey got the only copy of the Craft Beer Revolution.

It was okay, because I already owned such a copy. But this year I beat him to it. I got Joe Wiebe’s second edition of his book before the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Last night on Twitter I told him I was going to do that, so it was wonderful example of bipartisan efforts here in celebrating craft beer in B.C.

J. Shin: They say Korean mothers are a force to be reckoned with, and I’m blessed to have not just one but three. Joining us in the gallery today are my mother and her two sisters from Korea.

Mumbo Li, my mom’s younger sister, is a dedicated Christian missionary, and her army of prayers from the other side of the Pacific helped me get elected and take my seat here in this chamber. I would like to thank her again today.

Sabu Li, my mom’s youngest sister, owns and oversees Duwan Corp. with her husband and family. If you have a car, chances are that it has parts and technologies that
[ Page 12143 ]
were made and developed by Duwan. Her family’s corporation and subsidiaries have grown by leaps and bounds as a global group of manufacturing plants and sales offices now operating in Korea, China, North America, Germany, India, Russia and Brazil, employing 4,000 employees. Their sales exceeded $2.5 billion, with no strike or job action in the last 22 years.

As one of its many contributions to the society, Duwan established a non-profit high school as well as a state-of-the-art university, educating 5,000 students across its two beautiful campuses that I had the pleasure of visiting last year with members from Surrey-Whalley and Surrey–Green Timbers.

Madame Speaker, my aunt. One of her missions, and she often proposes it, is that I go back to Korea to work with her. But I’m sure you would agree that there is no fancy suite in a skyscraper in Seoul more breathtaking than the nature that we have in our backyards in British Columbia and, dare I say, no paycheque bigger than the privilege of being a Canadian.

[Korean was spoken.] Would all the members please make them feel very, very welcome.

J. Darcy: It gives me a pleasure to welcome Lee Trentadue to the House today. She ran a bookstore on Galiano Island for many years and is the driving force behind the Galiano Literary Festival. She’s not a constituent of New Westminster, but she’s the next best thing. She is the mother of our city councillor, Mary Trentadue, of whom she is very, very proud. Welcome please Lee Trentadue to the House today.

Hon. T. Lake: As members of the executive, we don’t get to make two-minute statements, but I did want to recognize someone today who is celebrating their birthday. He’s someone that’s made all of us proud here in British Columbia — Dr. Julio Montaner, who has led the fight against HIV/AIDS around the world. I just wanted to say, on behalf of all of us: happy birthday, Julio.

M. Mungall: We are joined today by several people. One of them, her name will be familiar to members. Sheenagh Morrison is back in the gallery. She’s been here many times over the last few months.

[1350]

She’s an amazing Special Olympic swimmer and a self-advocate for people with disabilities. Joining her are Angela Clancy and Karen. Angela is the executive director for the B.C. Family Support Institute.

We also have a mom and her two kids. Xander and Shelby are joined by their mom, Delphine Charmley, and they are here because they are strong advocates for people with disabilities. But also, Xander and Shelby are in the front row today, taking in everything that we’re doing here in the Legislature as part of their provincial section of their home studies class.

May the House please make them all very welcome.

V. Huntington: I would like to join the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in welcoming Alison Morse to the House today. Alison and I shared a class all the way through high school in West Van, and it’s indeed a pleasure to welcome her to the House today.

M. Mark: I’d like to introduce Romeo Tello, who wears a number of hats, one of which is as a constituent for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He’s an administrator, a coordinator and receptionist for the Vancouver caucus office.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Romeo to this House.

Statements

VAISAKHI

Hon. C. Clark: Over the next few days, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians will join millions of Sikhs around the world in celebrating Vaisakhi, and British Columbia, as all members know, is the home of the largest Vaisakhi celebration in North America. That’s the day that we celebrate the birth of the Khalsa. It’s the day that we celebrate the proud and enduring principles of the Sikh faith.

We are lucky in British Columbia that, over 100 years, we have succeeded in attracting so many people to our shores of South Asian descent — an entrepreneurial, community-minded group of people who have made such a difference.

I look forward, with other members of this House, in joining the thousands of people who will be participating in Vaisakhi events over the next few weeks. I’d like to say, on behalf of this House, to all British Columbians: Happy Vaisakhi. Lakh Lakh Vadhai.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the New Democrat caucus, I, too, want to wish the very best, and best wishes and a happy Vaisakhi to the Sikh community across B.C. as we celebrate the birth of the Khalsa.

It’s been 100 years since Sikhs have been coming to Canada and British Columbia and enriching our communities with their generosity, with their pursuit of social justice, with their pursuit of human rights and prosperity here on our shores. In fact, it’s the hard work and generosity of Sikhs right across B.C. that have strengthened our communities, wherever they may be.

At the same time, gurdwaras have been instrumental in reaching out to other faiths and creating bonds across different religions to make, again, our faith communities even stronger.

I hope everyone will join, as the Premier suggested, in Vaisakhi ceremonies right across British Columbia.
[ Page 12144 ]

This Saturday, the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade is going to take place, starting at the Ross Street Temple. On Sunday, here in Victoria, they’ll have another parade, starting at the temple on Topaz — and, of course, the massive celebration in Surrey on the 23rd. I encourage all British Columbians, wherever they may be, to find a celebration in your community. Enjoy Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi Di Lakh Lakh Vadiayi. Vaheguru Ji Kaa Khalsa. Vaheguru Ji Kee Fateh.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — SUSTAINABLE WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT ACT, 2016

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, 2016.

K. Conroy: I move that a bill intituled Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: The conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity in this province has been steadily decreasing. The land base has been neglected, and the sustainable management of animal populations across the province has been compromised. This needs to change.

Fish and wildlife are a valuable public resource that needs to be protected, and the British Columbians whose livelihood and recreation rely on these natural resources have been disregarded by this government for too long. This bill would ensure that we will protect these resources today and in the future.

Management of fish, wildlife and habitat shall be done in collaboration with First Nations on a government-to-government basis.

[1355]

This bill will require science-based objectives and peer review for habitat and wildlife management. It will establish a round table to carry out collaborative planning with First Nations and stakeholder groups.

Conservation of fish and wildlife and habitat will be a priority when planning for land- and water-use activities in British Columbia. It will ensure that adequate funding goes toward the management of wildlife and habitat by establishing a special account. By implementing science-based habitat and population management, by seeking out the expertise and experience of First Nations, resident hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts, and by prioritizing the conservation and biodiversity of habitats and populations, this bill will help to create jobs and a thriving environment in British Columbia now and for the future.

To quote B.C. Wildlife Federation president George Wilson: “A failure to adequately fund biodiversity conservation is the single biggest challenge B.C. faces.” Without funding, caribou, steelhead, sheep, moose populations and their habitat will continue to dwindle. Biodiversity needs to be funded, and it needs measurable objectives in B.C. As Hereditary Chief John Henderson, president of the Wildlife Stewardship Council, says: “Let’s use the seven-generations principle for future generations and the impact of our activities on those still unborn.”

I feel that this bill will ensure just that — a thriving wildlife for today, as well as for our children, grandchildren and their children. I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M217, Sustainable Wildlife Management Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M218 — POVERTY REDUCTION AND
ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2016

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2016.

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled the Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: Today marks the fifth time the New Democrat opposition has introduced this legislation.

Since 2011, when we first introduced a bill for a poverty reduction plan, we have seen food bank use in B.C. increase. Housing costs, food costs, hydro rates and post-secondary education costs increased as well. We have also seen every other province adopt plans that tackle poverty and seek economic inclusion for every one of their citizens. B.C. now remains the only province without a legislated plan that is transparent and accountable to its citizens. If we had a plan, government would have the structure in place to know when they are about to make poverty-creating policies and avoid such detrimental actions.

For example, had B.C. passed this bill already, it is highly unlikely that government would have suggested a bus pass clawback that increases bus pass fees for people with disabilities living in poverty. Additionally, a poverty reduction and economic inclusion act, as enabled by this act, would task government with identifying poverty-creating policies that are already in place and seek to end them.
[ Page 12145 ]

An example here is the maternity and parental leave clawbacks that deny working people with disabilities their right to collect EI benefits from maternity and parental leaves from work. While other Canadians have this right, our current government is denying them this, and it plunges families further into poverty simply because they are having children. There are so many factors that contribute to poverty, and ignoring poverty costs our communities and our economy more than taking action with a real plan.

Because of this and because it is the right thing to do, we need a comprehensive plan with targets and timelines to do the meaningful work of reducing poverty and including everyone in our economy. Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act can do just that, only if we’re given the opportunity to debate and pass it.

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

Bill M218, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INVASIVE PLANTS

R. Sultan: Facebook says I’m a gardener. Well, maybe. A huge plant, ten feet tall, sprang up out of nowhere. It was giant hogweed — a dangerous pest, as it turned out, parsnips on steroids. To kill it, I had to suit up and inject it with herbicide and learn more about invasive species.

[1400]

Surprises: my periwinkle is invasive. Scotch broom too. Ditto, those blackberries, which make such delicious pie. As for the Brits, I recently joined a Telus neighbourhood team pulling out their — I won’t say the word — English ivy.

Paul Berlinguette of North Shore Wetland Partners told me Cypress Provincial Park has been invaded. Bales of hay trucked in to save the Olympic Games also trucked in reed canary grass. Humans created this menace. A cultivar bred for fast growth and vigour, it takes over wetlands, and it destroys our streams. To control it, Wetland Partners, assisted by Fiona Wright’s Friends of Cypress and Cypress Mountain’s Bobby Swain, selectively pull it out. B.C. Parks is working on a management plan, educating volunteers and staff. Hopefully, herbicides will not have to be used.

Over in North Vancouver, a similar war is underway on the Seymour River. Here the invasive is knotweed. The ministry concluded only a full herbicide assault could do the job, but multiple stakeholders got together and said: “We want to try another way.” The ministry said: “Okay, you’ve got three years.” In 2019, we will see who won — the people or the herbicides. I am rooting on the side of the people.

RECONCILIATION JOURNEY BY
ANGLICAN BISHOP LOGAN MCMENAMIE

C. James: One step at a time, Anglican bishop Logan McMenamie is building a new relationship between First Nations and aboriginal people and the church. In March, those steps added up to 480 kilometres as he completed a three-week journey from Alert Bay to Victoria.

Shortly after his consecration in 2013, the bishop felt strongly that the Anglican Church on Vancouver Island needed to commit to a new relationship with its indigenous members and neighbours, and that commitment needed to take the form of concrete action. With the guidance of elders, the concept emerged of a sacred journey, a vision quest by the bishop, on behalf of the diocese, with the First Nations people on the land as an act of repentance.

Before starting the pilgrimage, the bishop met with chiefs and elders and asked for permission to pass through their lands. In each of the communities he visited, his message was simple and direct. “We failed you,” he told them. “We failed to recognize the Creator in you and your land, your culture and your tradition…. We were part of a system in the residential schools that took your children away from you, and they suffered sexual, physical and cultural abuse. And I’m very, very sorry.”

The bishop completed his journey on Easter Sunday at Christ Church Cathedral, a remarkable accomplishment and a profoundly meaningful way to establish mutual respect and further the goal of reconciliation. What an example of leadership for all of us.

I hope that all members will join me in congratulating Bishop McMenamie on the completion of what he sees as only one step on a very long journey to justice.

BULLYING PREVENTION AND
OUT IN SCHOOLS

J. Thornthwaite: Safe, welcoming and inclusive schools — that’s what we want for students in British Columbia. We want learning environments free from harassment, bullying and discrimination where youth, regardless of race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation are able to concentrate on their education, without fear.

Earlier today MLAs from both sides of the House celebrated the international Day of Pink with the team from Out in Schools, a program that brings fresh, relevant films into B.C.’s classrooms to facilitate dialogue, stop bullying and promote inclusion. These presentations are hosted by young artists and advocates who use film as a medium for social change. The short films presented are dynamic and engaging and help students experience,
[ Page 12146 ]
understand and empathize with the challenges LGBTQ youth face each day.

Out in Schools began in 2004 and has since reached out to more than 60,000 students. The program works closely with school districts, educators and counsellors to tailor each presentation to the specific needs of an individual school. Though the program started out delivering presentations across the Lower Mainland, in recent years, it has expanded to reach communities outside Metro Vancouver, including Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii, Williams Lake and Kamloops.

[1405]

In addition to providing opportunities to discuss these issues in the classroom, the program is also encouraging youth to create change by making films of their own. The Out in Schools youth short film contest invites anyone aged 12 to 19 to create a short film that challenges homophobia, transphobia and bullying.

Films have to be entered before May 20, 2016. I encourage any student who is interested to participate. This is a great way for youth to be a voice for change in their community and to support our efforts and those of the Out in Schools team to combat bullying and discrimination.

I ask the House to join me in thanking the Out in Schools team for engaging students on this important issue and for helping us to create safe, inclusive classrooms across the province.

CANADIAN INTERUNIVERSITY SPORTS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY WOMEN

A. Weaver: Last week in the House, we were introduced to the UBC Thunderbirds, the winner of the 2015 Vanier Cup. The next day we celebrated the 99th anniversary of the adoption of legislation by this Legislature providing women the right to vote in B.C. On that day, we celebrated how far we have come. These were indeed great events to celebrate. Today I’d like to expand the celebration of B.C.’s success — in the Canadian Interuniversity Sports, or CIS, sports championships.

In 2015, UBC’s women’s field hockey team won their fifth straight CIS championship. This year’s final game was a nail-biter. UBC was down 2-1 to the UVic Vikes with literally seconds left in the game when UVic was forced to defend not one but two penalty corners. UBC scored on the second penalty corner as time ran out and subsequently won the penalty shootout. Both players of the game, UBC’s Sarah Keglowitsch and UVic’s Lizzy Yates, were from Shawnigan Lake. There must have been something in the water there.

In women’s soccer, ten of the past 14 CIS championships have been won by B.C. universities, led by Trinity Western’s five titles, UBC’s four titles and UVic’s single title. UBC won this year’s final game 3-0 over the team from Trinity Western University.

The UBC women’s volleyball team won six consecutive titles from 2008 to 2013. This past year three of the top four teams in the country were from B.C.: Trinity Western, UBC Okanagan and UBC. In women’s basketball, from 2002 to 2010, B.C. universities won nine consecutive national titles: SFU, five; UBC, three; and UVic, one.

In the last 20 years, precisely four teams have been presented at the Bar: the B.C. Lions in 2006 and 2012, the Victoria Shamrocks in 2015 and UBC’s football team in 2016. As far as I can tell, a women’s sports team has never, ever before been presented at the Bar. We still have a long way to go.

EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCHERS

J. Sturdy: When you dial 911, the first thing you hear is “911 — police, fire or ambulance?” This is a voice of calm in a storm, offering relief and rescue and poised to deliver direction and support. The province of British Columbia has proclaimed April 10 to 16 as Emergency Service Dispatchers and 911 Awareness Week, in recognition of the vital role that call-takers and dispatchers play in providing emergency assistance.

The job of dispatchers is both hectic and heroic. Their calm, decisive voices can often have a dramatic impact. I’d like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of the emergency dispatchers and call-takers that help save lives of British Columbians each and every day.

British Columbia emergency health services emergency medical dispatchers and call-takers are the first point of contact for a medical emergency. Through the medical priority dispatch system, dispatchers calmly guide callers through life-saving interventions, from performing CPR to relieving airway obstructions or delivering babies.

B.C. Emergency health services operates three dispatch operation centres around the province, which, during 2015, received over half a million calls. In addition to working with the caller to identify the location and nature of the emergency and providing necessary life-saving instructions, the dispatcher alerts the most appropriate air or ground ambulance and paramedic crews.

Medical dispatchers also coordinate multi-resource transports where a ferry, water taxi, search and rescue teams, or helicopters are needed. They also liaise with receiving facilities, emergency service partner agencies, and police and fire resources in cases that require multiple or layered responses.

[1410]

Today I ask the House to join me in recognizing these often behind-the-scenes heroes and our lifeline in an emergency, the dispatchers and the call-takers of British Columbia.

ALICE MAITLAND

D. Donaldson: At a retirement party, when your boss says he always appreciated your sincere honesty, you
[ Page 12147 ]
know that could mean a whole lot of things — some of them not so positive. But with Alice Maitland, her honesty in dealing with people is what has earned her respect from all and admiration from many, including myself.

Alice retired as regional director with Northwest Community College March 31, with her primary focus during the last 15 years as manager of the Hazelton campus. Alice always put the community first when it came to Northwest Community College and the pressures that it’s been under for the last 15 years.

That is what a community college is for, to serve the vision of the community through educational offerings, rather than an institution serving the wishes of the government of the day through a top-down approach.

Alice epitomized responding to the grass roots, rather than what someone from afar deemed was good for us. That is another reason she is applauded for her sincere honesty. She is comfortable at that strategic level but is also able to connect with young adult learners in an amazing way — again, likely through that honesty that people respond to because it is genuine in wanting people to achieve their goals.

Recently I witnessed a young woman speaking with Alice about her dream of becoming a lawyer after a couple of years of criminology studies and how that dream wasn’t possible because of a lack of financial support. Alice told her of how she returned to school in her 60s to acquire a master’s degree in education and to keep her lawyer dream alive, because there was lots of time in life. You could see the young woman’s eyes flicker with hope as this amazing role model, four decades her senior, told her to not lose her ambition.

Thank you, Alice, for being such a mentor to so many, for being a fighter in a good way all your life for rural northern communities and our shared way of life. It will be the college’s loss, but thankfully, Hazelton and the north will still have you as mayor — the longest serving in B.C. history — to help ensure our grassroots vision is not ignored.

Oral Questions

NEW COAST REALTY TRANSACTIONS AND
REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

J. Horgan: Since January, we’ve been raising concerns about realtors who are taking advantage of families by trying to pad their profits in real estate transactions.

In January and February, we wrote to the Real Estate Council with serious allegations of fraud, unethical conduct and illegal behaviour by New Coast Realty. We brought those concerns directly to the minister responsible and to the Premier.

We asked that serious action be taken to protect homeowners and buyers. Well, yesterday the real estate advisory group acknowledged what we’ve been saying for months and what we’ve been calling for, and that is serious penalties for realtors who defraud and take unscrupulous activities to the nth degree at the cost of individuals and homeowners.

Serious criminal allegations have been made against this real estate firm, but no audits of previous transactions will be undertaken. No licences will be suspended. The response from the Real Estate Council is that New Coast is just too big to fail.

My question is to the Premier: will she crack down today on the unethical behaviour of some realtors who are bringing the entire industry in disrepute at the cost of people who want to have a home?

Hon. C. Clark: A home is probably the biggest investment that many of us, most of us, will make in our entire lives, and therefore, it is a very, very important thing to all of us who make that transaction. We need to make sure that it is done fairly, that the people who are assisting us in those sales and purchases are doing it honestly and acting in our best interests.

The issue that the member has raised is one that government has already started to stop — that is, with respect to shadow flipping, putting an end to it. And the member brought forward legislation which would have done the same thing, except that under his plan, in stopping shadow flipping, what the member would have done is made sure that the government got the extra money that the real estate agent would otherwise have received.

Our plan, which we will see in the next few weeks made real in regulation, would mean that the seller of the property, not the government, would get any additional profit that might otherwise have come and that currently people are seeing through what I would argue is a shady and unfair practice.

[1415]

Shadow flipping is done by people who are driven by pure, naked greed, and we are moving to put a stop to it.

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

J. Horgan: After we took action in this House, the Premier responded the next day, saying she’d had enough. She had had enough. She characterized it as pure greed, naked greed, and she was going to put a stop to it. Just ten days ago people in the Liberal Party received a letter from the president saying the following: “Our government has taken immediate action to end the practice of shadow flipping by implementing new provincial regulations.”

But with most of the things the Premier says, you really have to check that against delivery. I’ve just heard the Premier say now that we are working for something down the road. A month ago it was going to be immediate action. A week ago it had already happened.

What is it, Madam Premier, through you, hon. Speaker — are you going to take action, have you taken action, or
[ Page 12148 ]
is it just another way to move this ball down the field and hope the story goes away?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the purchase of a home is the single most important, most expensive transaction that most of us will make in our lifetimes. We do need to make sure that the changes that we make, while they are urgent and are being dealt with very quickly, need to be done well. This is not an NDP budget. We are not doing it on the back of a napkin.

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

J. Horgan: Yeah, the debt-free was on the side of a bus, not on the back of an envelope. The then communications director for the Premier said: “What would I do with $1 trillion?” That wasn’t on the back of an envelope; that was 140 characters on a tweet.

A month ago the Premier said she was going to take immediate action because she had had enough. We’ve been raising the issue for months in this Legislature. The people of the Lower Mainland have been talking about housing affordability for years, and now the Premier is saying: “This is tough. We’re going to have to take some time.”

When we asked the government to collect data on these instances, they said: “Well, we’re going to put a new box on the form so that we can trust the speculators to fill it in appropriately.” When we said that we should do audits and that we should suspend licences, the Premier said: “I’m going to put some people in charge of that.” They’ve just come back and said that actions should be taken, but not enough action.

My question to the Premier is this. In light of the serious allegations against New Coast Realty, will the Premier write to the Vancouver police and ask them to institute an investigation into the practices there so that we can protect other realtors in this province and we can protect homeowners and homebuyers from shady practices by this firm?

Hon. C. Clark: The government is already taking action. We will also…. We’re waiting now for the final report from the Real Estate Council, and we will take more, as I’ve said a number of times. If they don’t fix this through clear enforcement, through tough penalties, this government will do it for them. We won’t do it on the back of a napkin. We will do it properly, we will do it well, and we will respect the fact that people make a huge investment.

Huge investments are what people are making in British Columbia every day. The member talks about debt-free. Well, British Columbia will be wiping out our operating debt for the first time in 40 years.

Meanwhile, the member opposite…. You don’t get there by doing what the member opposite says. You don’t get there by saying no to Site C. You don’t get there by saying no to LNG. You don’t get there by saying no to trade deals, and you certainly don’t get there by saying no to workers and saying no to jobs. The only way to make sure you get rid of your debt in this province, the only way to make sure that we build a future for our kids, is to find a way to get to yes.

D. Eby: I understand why the Premier wants to change the topic. The allegations against New Coast Realty are shocking. They include that New Coast realtors were trained to deceive clients about property value so the company could sell the properties not once but twice, for two commissions.

[1420]

They include that the realtors were allegedly trained to deceive clients about the need for a fake buyers bonus that was actually going back to the client’s own realtor without the client’s knowledge. That’s fraud. Former New Coast realtor John Zhou told the media: “Sometimes the owner wanted us to do something illegal to make more money.”

A firm of 445 realtors, they advertise themselves as the largest realty firm in the city of Vancouver. Allegations they were schooled in fraud, former realtors alleging they were told to break the law, and the regulator says they won’t suspend the firm’s licence and won’t audit all of the past transactions.

We’ve written to the police. We’ll table those letters. Will the Premier write to the police as well?

Hon. C. Clark: We have taken action when it comes to shadow flipping, and the members will see the results of that in the next week or so. We are, though, also waiting and watching very carefully as we wait to receive the report, the final report, because this needs to be done well. It needs to be done thoughtfully and it needs to be done properly if we’re going to protect people in making sure that when they make that most important purchase of their lives, they are doing it with someone who is behaving ethically and in their best interests in all cases.

Here’s what the Real Estate Council has said so far. They wrote to say that they share council’s view that “maximum fines and penalties need to be increased to allow a greater and more meaningful range of monetary consequences.” The author of the letter says: “I expect the IAG will make a number of recommendations pertaining to penalties in its final report…ensure a robust system that not only punishes those who are caught but functions as a deterrence to those who are considering actions or activities that contravene the act and the rules.”

We are looking forward to seeing the final results of that report, as I said. If we don’t feel like it’s strong enough, we will certainly do more, because we want to ensure that people are protected in this province, that homebuyers are protected in this province. And we want to make sure
[ Page 12149 ]
that people who aren’t doing the right thing, people who are driven by greed, suffer severe penalties for doing so.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: While the Premier has been waiting, while she’s been watching, not a single rule has changed. Not only that, let me give the Premier an update on what’s been happening while she’s been waiting and while she’s been watching. New Coast has been in the news since February with allegations of reprehensible conduct. But the Real Estate Council didn’t feel they were worth investigating until they got an audiotape of an alleged how-to session in fraud.

Now, is the Premier content to let things play out, as they have, with consumers losing confidence in realtors in B.C., hard-working realtors who follow the rules, or will she join us in asking the police to investigate these serious fraud allegations involving this firm?

Hon. C. Clark: By the way, the investigation that’s happened, and this is in the letter that I’ve quoted from earlier, is the result of a request from the superintendent of real estate, who works for the Minister of Finance. This investigation and this work that’s being done was initiated, in part, by the government itself, because we want to get to the bottom of this, and we want to make sure that we are protecting homebuyers in the most important investment that they will ever make.

We are also working with the city of Vancouver and other governments across the region to deal with issues, where we can, on occupancy — nobody wants to live in a hollowed-out neighbourhood; on issues of speculation, to see what we can do around that; and on density.

And I would note that the member opposite who just raised the question, who often talks about housing prices, does not support increased density in his own riding. He is fighting rental housing. He is fighting that housing that would be available to a much broader range of people. And while he stands up and he says that he wants affordable housing in the city of Vancouver, he wants it everywhere else but the neighbourhood that he represents.

[1425]

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY
AND ACCESS TO VANCOUVER LISTINGS

M. Farnworth: It’s not just shadow flipping that’s a problem. For British Columbians right across this province, the dream of owning a home is the most important thing they have. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and they save for a down payment. They save for a down payment. The least that they can expect is that when they see a home for sale, they have first crack at that home.

Recent reports of what is taking place, in which offshore speculators are getting first crack at British Columbia homes, offshore speculators are getting to the head of the line, are frustrating the dreams of many British Columbians.

My question to the Premier is this. Does she believe it’s fair that offshore speculators get first crack at homes that hard-working British Columbians are trying to save for and buy?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as the member knows, people from around the world in British Columbia, which is still a free market…. Until we make that great leap forward, we are still a capitalist society where people can invest from around the world. That’s been the case in British Columbia for a long time.

However, our government has reinstated…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …the requirement that people submit, on their purchase, whether or not they are a citizen of Canada. That was something that the NDP took out and that our government is putting back in. Clearly, when we have more information and more data, we will be better off and better able to have these discussions.

The other thing I would add is this. Housing supply is clearly a very, very big issue in the Lower Mainland. When supply and demand — I’m pretty sure none of the NDP went through economics 101, but this is what they teach you — are out of balance, it means that prices rise. We do need to do some work in making sure that there’s an adequate supply of housing.

Interjections.

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

Vancouver-Hastings, come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: I feel like it’s too easy to get those guys upset, Madame Speaker.

We do need to work on issues of supply, and that’s something that we need to do in concert with local governments. That’s something that our Minister of Housing and our Minister of Finance are currently working on with the mayor of Vancouver. Ultimately, all of the changes that we can make to ensure transparency and ethical behaviour in the system will be important, but we do need to make sure that we address the basic issue of supply and demand, which clearly is out of balance.

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

M. Farnworth: What the public of British Columbia wants is some action from this government. What they
[ Page 12150 ]
want is a fair market, not a rigged market where they’re second in line. They want to know that when they go to a realtor, they’re not getting told, “Oh, this price is the best price,” and then find out later that — guess what — it was sold for additional revenue that they are not seeing. That’s what they want. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and when they see a house on MLS, they want to know they’re getting first crack. That’s not taking place.

My question again to the Premier is this. Does she think it’s fair that offshore speculators are getting first crack at family homes that British Columbians want to buy?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, you know, 13,000 people moved from other provinces in Canada to British Columbia over the last three quarters. Almost half of them were from Alberta.

I suppose the member opposite would also like, then, to make sure British Columbians get first crack at those homes that Alberta refugees who are fleeing the economic devastation next door and crossing the Rockies looking for one of those 72,000 new jobs that have been created in British Columbia last year — by the way, the number one economy in Canada…. I suppose the member would like to bar all those Albertans from being able to get a first crack at a home in British Columbia as well.

I hope I’ve illustrated that the issue is more complicated than the member suggests in a free economy. But we do want to make sure that when we welcome people to British Columbia and we make homes available for British Columbians…. When he says it should be only British Columbians that get first crack, I don’t think it’s as simple as that.

[1430]

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND
DIVIDENDS TO GOVERNMENT

A. Dix: In the budget debate on B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy made a series of embarrassing admissions. First of all, he said that under this Premier, the Liberal cabinet had ordered B.C. Hydro to borrow money it doesn’t have; $2 billion left because the B.C. Liberals needed the cash. That’s what we call Premier profit. Perhaps if the Premier took economics 101 again, she’d understand that everyone else calls it debt.

Secondly, the Liberal cabinet ordered B.C. Hydro, even though it knew it would not be permitted to do so by the B.C. Utilities Commission, to create a revenue acceleration account to create accelerated revenue that did not exist in fact.

Both of these things were ordered by the cabinet, not B.C. Hydro and, according to a Moody’s report this week, have transformed the financial position of once-proud B.C. Hydro into one of the weakest in Canada. How can the minister justify this unprecedented and misleading raid that has undermined B.C. Hydro’s financial position?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the Moody’s annual report was not actually a change from previous reports. The province still has a triple-A credit rating, something that the other side would definitely not be familiar with. Moody’s has also stated that B.C. Hydro’s debt service ability is still strong.

What we know, and we’ve dealt with this now in estimates…. We’ve also dealt with it during question period, so we’ll deal with it again during question period. The practice of B.C. Hydro paying dividends to government started in 1992. The media in the 1990s made it very clear that the NDP should stop using B.C. Hydro as a “cash cow.” That’s a quote from an article of the day. The NDP at the time kept rates artificially high. They bring this upon themselves. They truly do.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me just read a quote, if I can, hon. Speaker, if I can have some ability to actually say something without being interrupted.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

This is a quotation from January 29, 2000. It’s from the Vancouver Sun. “The New Democrats resorted to an extraordinary set of cabinet orders that forced Hydro to keep its electricity rates artificially high, ensuring the flow of dividends would continue. In 1993 and again in 1998, Hydro had to borrow money to satisfy the provincial government’s cash demands.” That’s an article in the Vancouver Sun from the year 2000.

We have committed to changing this practice by reducing the dividends payable to government by $100 million a year, starting in 2018.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Boy, I’m glad we stayed quiet for that quote. Oh boy.

Interjections.

A. Dix: A 5 percent increase in rates over nine years. The minister said we kept the rates artificially high. But he wrestled them to the ceiling at 28 percent, and he’s defending ratepayers.

None of this changes the fact that the Minister of Energy and the Liberal government…. Under their leadership, the people of B.C., on these questions, were misled. They were misled when the government created $2 billion in debt and claimed it was profit. That was misleading.
[ Page 12151 ]

Who misled the people? I can’t say in this House, but the decision was made by the Liberal government. The people were misled when they created a revenue acceleration account that created revenue out of thin air to help the Liberal government try and balance the budget.

[1435]

They did it. It was unprecedented. It would have been refused by the BCUC, and they did it in the cabinet. Who misled the people? I can’t say in this House, but they’re probably sitting over there. Who will pay the price for it? It’s ratepayers. It’s ratepayers that are paying it now, and they’re paying it into the foreseeable future, and they can’t pay with Premier dollars.

Why has the minister undermined B.C. Hydro? Why have people in this province been misled by the shabby B.C. Hydro policies of this government?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, we’ve misled the ratepayers of B.C. all the way to the third-lowest rates in North America. That’s how bad it is. It’s really bad.

You know, the member sits over there, and he talks to us on this side of the House about misleading. Of all the members on the other side of the House, he sits over there, and he talks about misleading people. You know what? I don’t ride the subway very much, but when I do, I buy a ticket. And the other thing that I never do is I never backdate memos and then lie about it to the RCMP. I don’t do that. Nobody on this side of the House ever does that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let that member not be preaching to us about misleading anybody.

PORT MANN BRIDGE
TOLLING EXEMPTION POLICY

J. Wickens: The Port Mann tolling operator, TReO, offers an exemption for persons with disabilities, but to qualify, one must be the registered owner of that vehicle. This policy leaves parents and caregivers of children with disabilities facing the same or greater transportation demands paying full tolls. While the Transportation Investment Corporation has promised a review of their tolling policy, that is not good enough.

Families have it hard enough in this province. I am sick and tired of families being pushed to the absolute breaking point before this government will look at its ridiculous policies. The breaking point. Families are looking at the breaking point, and having to pay to go back and forth for therapy is completely unacceptable.

Will the minister commit today to extending the exemption to parents of children with disabilities in this province?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I would like to remind the member opposite that the Port Mann Bridge, through the TI Corp, is actually one of the only tolled facilities, one of the only tolling authorities not just in North America but indeed around the world that actually provides exemptions for persons with disabilities, and we’re very proud of that.

Now, that being said, we’re always looking for ways to make further improvements. That is why I’m very pleased that TI Corp has made their intentions known that they are launching a review of their entire exemptions policy. Certainly, we understand the struggles of parents with children who have disabilities, and that is why it will be so important, as part of this review, to hear from those folks, to hear from those organizations. The review is underway now, and we will see where it lands in the coming months.

[1440]

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Well, despite the minister’s long-standing spin job, people with disabilities are not giving up on their fight to end the bus pass clawback. Today they were on the steps of the Legislature again. Delphine Charmley was among them. She has two adult sons with disabilities who will now each be paying another $624 every year for their bus pass. If they choose not to get out into their community, however, and rather to take that money and buy the healthy food that they need but can’t afford now, they will not have to pay that extra money.

Interjections.

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

M. Mungall: Delphine knows that this choice that the minister has forced onto her sons is plain wrong. It is mean-spirited, and it needs to come to an end immediately. Why doesn’t the minister know that as well?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The fact is everyone who receives persons-with-disabilities assistance will now receive a transportation allowance. Everyone, including the 45,000 people who were never receiving transportation support, will now receive it.

We have made a $170 million investment to help raise the rates for people with disabilities. Everyone will see a $25 rate increase to their allowance, and they will see a $52 transportation allowance, still providing everyone with transportation across this province, no matter where they live. Now the system will be fair and equitable for everyone.
[ Page 12152 ]

M. Mungall: The minister has no idea why 45,000 people were not accessing the alternative transportation subsidy or the bus pass program because she consulted with absolutely no one on this bus pass clawback. It was something that they dreamed up to give people money with one hand and take away with the other, and that is just plain mean.

The minister ought to know by now that Ms. Charmley isn’t the only mother concerned for her children’s continued ability to be part of their community. There are thousands just like her. Clair Schuman writes about her son. He has autism, is not able to work and needs his bus pass to keep some independence. Getting enough healthy food is a challenge for him, and now he and his mom are trying to figure out whether he should buy more healthy food or if he should buy a bus pass, because with this policy, it just can’t be both.

When will the minister stop putting thousands of families like Delphine’s and Clair’s between a rock and a hard place and do the right thing? End the bus pass clawback. That’s the right thing, Minister. Let’s see it today.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If the member opposite is having such a difficult time understanding what an investment of $170 million means to the people with disabilities around this province, she can come meet with me. It’s been months. She has never requested a meeting with me. She has never come to talk to me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. B. Bennett: I want to withdraw the use of one word. I thought, after I sat down, that it’s not a word that’s parliamentary, and I shouldn’t have used it.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

[1445]

Madame Speaker: We will only proceed, Members, if the Chair can hear the submissions.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

A. Dix: I know it’s the slogan of that government that rules are for other people, but I will reserve my right to raise a question of privilege in this House.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: For the information of members, there will be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education in Section A. Here in the main House, Section B, I now call Motion 11. I would ask that members involved in the Education estimates and other duties please depart the chamber before we begin the debate on the motion here in this chamber.

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I seek leave to table the two documents I discussed in my question today — letters to the police concerning New Coast Realty.

Leave granted.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 11 — TRANS-PACIFIC
PARTNERSHIP

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to move a motion in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a motion that asks and urges the federal government to implement it.

There are voices across this country today — we hear them loudly and clearly — that say no to all economic development. They say no to creating jobs for working people. They say no to deals like TPP. In the name of ideology, they claim that it’s time to dismantle our economic foundation. But what they are really saying is no to working people, and they’re saying no to jobs. If those voices had their way, this would be the first generation of British Columbians that left this province poorer than we found it.

I know that we can always do better. We always must strive as a government, and as a society, to do better. But the answer isn’t to disrupt the free flow of ideas and the free flow of capital. It isn’t to disrupt innovation and all of those things that happen in a functioning capitalist system, where trade deals mean jobs.

In British Columbia, we know that international trade is the foundation of our prosperity. International trade is what creates jobs for people across our province, and it always has been. We are Canada’s Pacific gateway, and our future is linked more that any other province in the country with what’s going on in Asia.
[ Page 12153 ]

For over ten years, we have focused on expanding our trade and investment ties in Asia, and it has worked. The results are clear. We’ve seen more opportunities. We’ve seen more wealth. We have seen more jobs in every corner of this province — 72,000 jobs created over the last 12 months in British Columbia.

We are number one in economic growth in Canada, and that’s as a result of the visionary work that the private sector and government have done together in opening up new markets, diversifying our customer base, diversifying the products that we sell to them. Whether it’s sawmills or software, mining or medical technology, we benefit from trade. When I say we, I mean workers and families in British Columbia.

[1450]

There are benefits to trade on both sides. We export clean technology to China. China uses that clean technology to make sure that they have less pollution, that they fight climate change — the same with Korea, the same with Japan, the same with countries around the world.

The TPP is another great step in the right direction for us — a level playing field for a market of 800 million people, a total GDP of $28 trillion, a $235 million boost to British Columbia’s GDP and thousands of jobs that go with that.

We know what happens when provinces rely too much on a single industry. We’ve avoided that in British Columbia by creating one of the of the most diversified economies in North America. We know what happens when provinces and jurisdictions rely on just one trading partner. We’ve also focused on making sure that we diversify our markets. We know what happens when governments focus on growing the size of government, rather than growing the size of the economy.

We need to create jobs in British Columbia. We need to continue along that path if we want to leave our children richer than even we have been. British Columbia and Canada need to keep moving forward. We don’t need to move backward. So let’s encourage Ottawa to do its consultations, as they promised in their platform. Let’s let them hear from Canadians. But at the end of that process, let’s encourage them and urge them to move quickly on passing TPP, because it will be great for workers in British Columbia.

With that in mind, I introduce the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership because: the Trans-Pacific Partnership removes trade barriers and provides preferential market access for B.C. goods and services from all sectors including forest products, agrifoods, technology, fish and seafood, minerals and industrial goods, and through the transition support will be available to our supply-managed industries; the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides more access for service providers in professional, environmental, and research and development fields; and, ultimately, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase investment and create new jobs and opportunities for many British Columbians.]

J. Horgan: Once again, the Premier has called her motion today, absolutely convinced that she knows best. In this case, it’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The CEO of Ford of Canada has said: “There will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing.” But the Premier knows best. The former CEO of BlackBerry Canada said: “I actually think this is the worst thing that the Harper government has done for Canada.” But the Premier knows best. The CEO of an investor in a B.C. tech start-up said: “Potentially dangerous for several innovation-driven sectors such as tech.” But again the Premier knows best.

A Nobel Prize–winning economist has said the deal “was done in secret and with corporate interests at the table.” Again the Premier knows best — which perhaps explains why the Premier is so comfortable with this. It’s because there is an expert whose opinion she values more than all of these others, who said: “Ten years from now, I predict with 100 percent certainty” — 100 percent certainty — “that people are looking back, and they will say: ‘This was a great thing.’”

The Premier supports that. That, of course, was Stephen Harper who said that some time ago. You might remember Stephen Harper. He was the Prime Minister of Canada. The public responded to his certainty by dispatching him to the opposition benches, and I expect that that may well happen to the Premier as well. But the Premier knows best — 100,000 jobs in LNG. Focusing all of her energies on one sector, the Premier knew best. “Debt-free in British Columbia” — the Premier knew best. A $100 billion….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1455]

J. Horgan: The Premier specializes in 100 percent certainty. That’s how she rolls. That’s why we have a dead-in-the-air prosperity fund that’s being now populated by increases to MSP premiums, not by revenues from LNG but from increased costs year after year after year that have been brought in by this government. Stephen Harper got his feedback on the TPP, and it was pretty clear.

On Monday, in this province, the new federal government will be in Vancouver as part of their public consultation with Canadians to hear what we think about this important issue — what regular people think about this important issue. Regular people — people that the Premier doesn’t spend having dinners at $10,000 a pop — ordinary folks. They’re going to have their say, and it would be nice if the Premier agreed with that.

Interjections.
[ Page 12154 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier is going to leave that to the federal government. She is absolutely certain that she knows best about how we’re going to grow our economy. I’ve seen that from her for the past five years. [Applause.]

I see almost all the seals are here today, and that was a resounding blast from those on the other side.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, parliamentary debate is characterized by moderation.

J. Horgan: If the Premier wants to carry forward her 100 percent certainty that she knows best and that this is in the public interest, I’m proposing that she take the opportunity to actually ask the public what they think — not to come out of her private meetings and say: “This is going to be grand for everyone.”

I’m hopeful that she’ll support the following motion. I will move:

[That Motion 11 be amended by deleting the text after, “Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports” and substituting, “referral to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for robust and transparent discussion and public consultation on the long-term job creation and employment impacts for British Columbia of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”]

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: The motion speaks for itself. The federal government, as I said, is going to be here on Monday. They’re having open hearings. They’re going to talk to British Columbians to see how they feel about the TPP and whether it’s going to be in the best interests of their sectors, of their communities, of their jobs.

The federal government understands that people have concerns and questions, and they need to be addressed. The certainty that the Premier has is not shared by the new government in Ottawa. They’re going to go out and consult and talk to the people of British Columbia, the people of Alberta — right across the country — and that’s as it should be.

A confident government would ask the people what they thought. A confident government would not just say: “I know best.” A confident government would say to people: “What are your views? What do you think? I appreciate we’ve been here languishing on the government side for 15 years doing whatever the heck we want, but now we’ve decided we want to talk to you. We want to talk to you about how you feel about this motion.”

When this motion was moved, I had a hope that the Premier would recognize that this was an opportunity for her and her colleagues to say to British Columbians: “We care about what you think. We care about your concern that other trade deals in the past have had a negative impact on job creation” — and a negative impact on their jobs.

B.C. is a trading province. We all understand that. There’s great hope and potential and opportunity across the Pacific Ocean. I agree with that statement. But I’m not necessarily convinced that the CEOs that sit down with the Premier and tell her that she should be 100 percent certain that it’s in their interests are speaking for the people of British Columbia.

With that, I’m hopeful that other members of this House will support this amendment and join with me in saying that the people of B.C. should have a say in the TPP, not just the Premier and the people she dines with.

[1500]

Hon. T. Stone: On the amendment. First, I want to say that it actually really takes courage to stand up and tell British Columbians what you actually stand for. I know the members opposite, and the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, would like to gloss over the fact that the federal government is on the front end of a cross-Canadian engagement. That’s their job. This is a federal trade deal. They’re going to do engagement. They’re going to be out there, and they’re going to talk to people across the country.

What British Columbians want to know is where the parties in this province stand. Where is the…?

Interjections.

Hon. T. Stone: I know we touch a nerve when we talk about standing up for jobs. But, you know, the unfortunate reality…. And we certainly saw this play out at the national NDP convention, which many members opposite attended this last weekend, where the great leap forward, the manifesto, was endorsed. We now know why members opposite are so reticent to support jobs in this province, so reticent to get behind projects that will put British Columbians to work.

When you look at this, you quickly realize that it’s actually the B.C. NDP, the members opposite, who are the intellectual inspiration for the Leap Manifesto. Every opportunity that the members opposite have had in this House to support major projects, job-creating projects in this province, the members opposite have said no.

Every major transportation infrastructure investment that we have moved forward with as a government in the last 15 years, the members opposite have voted against. We see that pattern continue with the Port Mann Bridge. We’re seeing it with the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. Site C — there was a tremendous opportunity…. It was a tremendous opportunity and continues to be, because they can change their minds. We encourage them to do so. There was a tremendous opportunity for
[ Page 12155 ]
the members opposite to stand up and to support Site C, and it was another big, fat no from the members opposite.

LNG. Now, members opposite try to walk a line. Some of the members opposite say that they support some aspects of LNG. Some are opposed to fracking. Some support this project but not that project. But when they had the opportunity to stand up on the largest investment, the potential investment in the immediate term, the Pacific NorthWest LNG, the members opposite decided to say no yet again. While they like to put out press releases by the dozen on a daily basis, on that particular point, there was no press release. It was a simple letter sent secretly to the federal CEAA process. But at the end of the day, it was another big no from the members opposite.

It’s not that difficult to actually get behind these projects and support the thousands of British Columbians who stand to benefit in the form of really good-paying, family-supporting jobs. I mean, perhaps the members opposite should spend a bit more time with the building trades folks than they obviously do. If they did, they would understand that there are tremendous opportunities, whether it’s with Site C or with LNG or with any number of major transportation infrastructure projects in this province. The members opposite consistently say no to those projects.

[1505]

Then we see this Leap Manifesto come forward last weekend. This is where all the dots are starting to connect. This is where, I think, British Columbians are really, truly going to see what the agenda of the B.C. NDP, the members opposite, really is.

This is a manifesto, as they like to call it, that, among many things, says: “There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future…. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.” The manifesto says that there must be “more localized and ecologically based” agricultural systems. Their manifesto calls for an end to trade deals. It goes on and on and on.

Many members opposite were at this convention, because they’re all members of the NDP, as the NDP. They participated in the vote on the resolution that was put on the floor and that was endorsed by the members at the convention, the resolution that said: “Be it resolved that the NDP recognizes and supports the Leap Manifesto as a high-level statement of principles that speaks to the aspirations, history and values of the party.”

The Leader of the Opposition has had ample opportunity to distance himself from the Leap Manifesto. Instead, he goes back and forth, as he does on most issues. In the radio interviews that he did this morning, he talked about how he doesn’t agree with all of the Leap Manifesto. But there’s a good amount there that he can work with, he says.

I think British Columbians are looking forward to finding out, you know, what…. Is that the “no more fracking in British Columbia” part? The “keep the resources in the ground forever” part? Is it the “no more big infrastructure” part? Is it the “let’s not import and export agriculture products” part? What part is it?

This brings us back to the TPP motion, to the amendment to the motion. We know where we stand when it comes to jobs in this province. We consistently approach these major projects from a perspective of: how do we get to yes? How can we bring all the parties together, resolve any issues that there might be, get to yes and create jobs? The members opposite start from a place of no, and their track record consistently demonstrates that.

With respect to the amendment, again, I would remind the members opposite that this is a Canadian federal government trade deal. It’s an international trade deal. The federal government is in the midst of a significant consultation across the country.

We encourage all British Columbians to participate in that engagement, obviously. But part of that engagement is for the province of British Columbia, the people who are duly elected by the people of this province, to also stand up and to let British Columbians know where they stand.

This is a good trade deal for British Columbia. It’s a deal that’s going to create thousands of jobs in British Columbia. It’s going to ensure that British Columbia, as the Pacific gateway for this great country of ours, continues to benefit from our place in geography and our place in history.

It’s time for the members of this chamber and the members opposite to stand up and let British Columbians know whether they support this trade deal or not. With that in mind, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

B. Ralston: I rise to support the amendment. The Premier’s motion is clearly — unfortunately, in my view — not the result of profound or considered deliberation that this topic deserves but rather is based on a very simple political calculus, and we just heard that exemplified by the Minister of Transportation.

[1510]

The Premier and her Minister of Trade supported the Harper government in pursuit of this deal long before they had any idea what was actually in the deal. The deal was negotiated in secret, yet they profess support simply, I suppose, because it had the “trade deal” label on it.

The approach that the Premier offers today is a continuation of that very view. In contrast, the new federal Minister of International Trade has spoken of her strong belief “in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP.”

Now, we haven’t heard much from the Minister of Transportation nor from the Premier, other than a few
[ Page 12156 ]
shibboleths about Asia-Pacific trade, which everyone agrees with. But in a trade deal as complex and detailed as this, the detail is really required to be examined in considerable length.

Let me give you an example of this, the approach that the government has taken on this issue. When I asked the Minister of International Trade in estimates debate, she spoke of her belief that the agreement will result in a net gain of jobs for British Columbia. Net gain implies, clearly, that there will be some gains and some losses and that the net will be a balance of gain.

When I asked her where the losses would be, she refused to answer. The report that she relies on, this study that she claims demonstrates this fact, is still secret. Contrast that approach — a secret study that she will not reveal, that talks about job losses and job gains — with the approach taken by the federal government, the new federal Liberal government. Her strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP are very different.

Of course, over on the other side, it’s the last bastion of Harper Toryism there. They’re still in mourning for the loss of the Tory government and the approach that he took: vituperative, nasty personal attacks on opponents; secrecy; using parliament as a rubber stamp; no transparency; no democratic discussion. That’s the legacy. Indeed, they’ve imported some people from Alberta and from Ottawa to continue that at the staff level here.

The agreement is long and complicated, and it’s not just about lowering tariffs. Many knowledgable voices have raised concerns, deep concerns, about the effect the TPP has on raising global IP, intellectual property, standards agreed by the World Trade Organization by extending and enforcing the American IP regime and interest to all TPP countries.

Arguably, the proposed agreement marks a shift in global value creation from tangible to intangible goods by providing unprecedented advantages to current holders, large holders and producers of IP. The creation of value in the 21st century will be led by the holders of IP. Some have described the deal as a charter of rights for the U.S. entertainment and pharmaceutical industries.

Let me quote from Blackberry’s co-CEO Jim Balsillie, who is blunt in his assessment of how the deal affects the technology sector, arguing Canada lost, and potentially lost big. He says:

“I would argue that the innovation part of TPP is ten times more important than manufacturing and dairy combined. The U.S. intellectual property economy is $3.5 trillion a year. Their objective is double that to $7 trillion through TPP. Traditional stuff is bits and bites for them. The real pony for the U.S. is selling their ideas…. Half their exports are IP, intellectual property. Basically, the U.S. wanted a bunch of rules to lock in their leadership.”

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, has said that his biggest issue with the treaty revolves around the investment chapter and the right it would give corporations to sue governments if they think rules and regulations contravene the terms of the TPP.

He also expressed concern, and he’s expressed this concern to the federal Minister of International Trade, that the deal would do little boost growth and would hurt Canada’s job landscape. “Canada is a country which, on average, will be importing labour-intensive goods and exporting capital-intensive goods so that on net, there will almost surely be job losses.” All this deserves careful scrutiny in the public realm, not the rhetorical harangue provided by the Premier.

[1515]

We have time to debate this. We know that in the United States, the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both oppose the TPP deal. For balance, the leading Republican contender for their nomination, Donald Trump, also opposes the TPP deal. So the likelihood….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: That’s to satisfy some of the members from the Fraser Valley.

The Globe and Mail, in an editorial, said this:

“There is no rush. This deal needs to be ratified by the partisan, electioneering Congress, and Mr. Obama is facing an uphill battle on that front. That’s part of the reason why he’s appealing…to the American people to read the TPP, in the hope they will see its appeal and pressure their representative to ratify it.

“It doesn’t have to work that way in Canada.”

This is the Globe and Mail, in an editorial.

“The defeat of the Harper government, a government that reduced parliament to a rubber stamp, is solid evidence that Canadians want their representatives to do the work they were elected to do — that is, to protect Canadians’ interests in an informed, non-partisan way. The TPP debate is the place to begin.”

We’ve seen exactly the opposite. The Liberals have initiated a process, what the minister has called a robust and transparent examination. We have had no such thing here in British Columbia. There are particular interests in British Columbia that merit examination by the chamber, and the committee is certainly the best way in which that could be done.

At this point in the economic cycle, it is a moment to pursue, vigorously, innovation. While our traditional resources are the bedrock of our economy, Canada can be hurt by an overdependence on a single resource. Losing the ability to innovate is foolish. We need to carefully analyze the proposed agreement to see what the implications for British Columbia and Canada would be.

That really is the job of parliamentary representatives. That’s the job that a committee of this House could undertake. Rather than the rhetorical overkill and excess and the vituperative attacks on opponents that seem to now characterize the government daily, it’s time to have the kind of debate that this very serious topic deserves.

With that, I will conclude. I definitely support the amendment, and I hope — against hope, perhaps — that the members opposite will support it as well.
[ Page 12157 ]

Madame Speaker: Just a caution, Members. It is possible to disagree in this chamber without resorting to personal attack.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment — not because I don’t understand the direction that the official opposition is heading, but because the TPP is bad for British Columbia. I have heard so much rhetoric coming from the other side, but let’s be very clear. The motion that we are debating today was brought to this Legislature initially in the fall. It was brought to this Legislature before the text of the TPP was even available.

That tells me that members opposite…. Frankly, I would bet a lot of money that not a single member opposite has actually taken the time to read the agreement. Members opposite, honestly, I would argue, are just touting government lines. They talk about this being good for jobs. Well, let me give you some evidence here that I’ve actually got in studying this.

I’m holding a document called Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partner Agreement, written by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta from Tufts University as part of the Global Development and Environmental Institute. Let’s be clear what they say. Overall, the TPP is going to be a job loser. How much so for Canada? Canada will lose 58,000 jobs through the passage of the TPP. This isn’t about creating jobs; this is about losing jobs. Net exports in Canada will go down by 6.6 percent of GDP. This is not good for Canada; this is not good for B.C.

[1520]

The reason why the government is touting job growth numbers is because they’re quoting from economic models that had a fundamental error in them. The fundamental error was that they assumed 100 percent employment, whereas if I can give you a wonderful example of what it means and how perverse that is in this context. Full employment is not a good start for economic analyses to make estimates on job creation.

Here’s the example. Let’s say, for example — it’s coming from this Tufts document — that the demand for cars were to drop below producers’ expectations. The economic model that this government is relying on, assuming full employment, assume that car prices will fall, ensuring that all production is sold. Faced with lower-than-expected profits, car producers who want to cut costs may reduce the number of workers employed. However, since labour markets also supposedly enjoy price flexibility, wages will fall, ensuring that all auto workers remain employed, either in the car industry or in some other sector.

That’s clearly an incorrect assumption. If prices fall, companies close down plants and workers lose their jobs, which is why, with the more realistic assumption of not full employment, we understand that this agreement will lead to 58,000 job losses in British Columbia.

Coming back, let’s be clear again. This government puts a motion on the table before they have even seen the text of the agreement, because the text is not public. Can you believe this, hon. Speaker? We are not making this up. It’s a reality and a matter of public record. Go to Hansard on the day that this motion was tabled. I tweeted out that day.

The text isn’t even available, yet this government is touting the TPP as good for British Columbia. Why? Because today’s B.C. Liberals are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories. This is a play out of the Harper Tory playbook, which is negotiate the deal, come hell or high cost, for the best interests of the corporate entities and the multinationals, not in the best interests of Canadians.

Let me outline some other reasons I disagree with the TPP as being good for Canadians and, hence, why I am not supporting the amendment because I’m opposing the actual motion in the first place. I do not think we should be discussing these matters further in light of the fact that it is federal jurisdiction, and this is not in British Columbia’s best interest.

The first and most obvious reason to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership is because of the threat it poses to the sovereignty of our province, primarily because of the investor-state dispute settlement clauses found in chapter 9 of this agreement. This government clearly hasn’t even read the document. It’s essentially saying that we’re tying future generations to investor-state dispute clauses that then have provisions that allow for a company to sue our government if that government implements a regulation, law or policy that affects the future profits of the company.

Such claims would be settled in secret, through secret tribunals outside of our justice system. This is what this government is putting forward in a rah-rah, cheerleading fashion. Why? Because Petronas told them to do this. Because one of the very few jurisdictions, in the 12 jurisdictions that are part of this, that benefit is Malaysia.

This government is so desperate to deliver on an election promise they knew had no hope of winning — it was purely an election strategy — that they’re selling out future generations yet once more in an irresponsible manner here.

Why would we support a trade deal that limits our sovereignty, that places the interests of multinational corporations above the interests of British Columbians? As legislators, it is our duty to act in the best interests of the electorate, not in the best interests of multinational corporations based elsewhere.

This type of provision is not new. It currently exists under NAFTA as well, but let’s outline that it’s quite different in NAFTA. Under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, we know we can end NAFTA, as a nation, within six months, but with the TPP, we have little clear indication of how easy or difficult it is to withdraw from the agreement.
[ Page 12158 ]

“Sign a blank cheque,” this government says, “and give our British Columbia sovereignty, our Canadian sovereignty to multinational corporations based elsewhere,” in a desperate attempt to land a Petronas deal that they’ve already written an agreement for that, frankly, we should be debating about eliminating because it’s such a giveaway. We’re debating greenhouse gas reduction bills in this Legislature yet once more, to give yet another giveaway. Reckless, reckless economics.

[1525]

Opposition to this bill comes from across the political spectrum. When you have every presidential candidate on both sides in the United States opposing the TPP…. By “every” I mean Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and, bless him, Donald Trump. Now, I couldn’t see people further across the political spectrum than Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. But they’re joined by other perhaps more economically savvy, because that’s their background, viewpoints.

Let me quote, for example, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. This isn’t some Johnny-come-lately who has taken first-year economics at perhaps some local university and failed it twice, and maybe the third time they passed it. This is a Nobel Prize–winning economist, and he says this:

“‘I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations.’

“‘It used to be the basic principle was polluter-pay,’ he says. ‘If you damage the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, for example, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars.’

“‘This deal was done in secret with corporate interests at the table,’ he said.”

And he described this, succinctly, as the “worst trade deal ever.” And that’s not a failed economist; that’s a Nobel Prize–winning economist, Joseph Stigler.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Stiglitz. Sorry. Thank you to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education for correcting me — and from the appropriate ministry, as well. The ever-helpful minister.

Honestly, it’s mind-boggling that we’re doing this.

Let me quote another person. This is David Wolfe. David Wolfe is a co-director of the innovation policy lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs and author of the introduction to the second edition of Trade, Industrial Policy and International Competition. This is another esteemed academic, and he says the following:

“As Canada’s negotiation strategy for TPP, the previous government adopted the traditional approach to international trade agreements. They bargained for increased access to international markets in the economic sectors where Canadian trade performance is strongest, while sacrificing some protection in the domestic market, especially in the manufacturing sectors. The trouble with this approach is that it is a 20th-century trade strategy applied to a 21st-century economy. Canada negotiated TPP in the rearview mirror.

“The United States,” he said, “did the opposite in their negotiations. They aimed to secure competitive advantage for knowledge-based, high-growth sectors with the greatest potential for expansion in the 21st century. The 21st-century business world is less and less a material enterprise that builds physical products and more and more a virtual enterprise that is driven by software and technology. Think Google, Monsanto, even Tesla. In the 21st-century economy, it is the algorithms which drive the success of the enterprise and the intellectual property that underlies companies’ business models that are most critical for economic success.”

When I hear this government argue that this is good for the tech sector, I’m wondering what they’re taking, because it is very clearly in the worst interest of the tech sector, as highlighted by industry after industry after industry rep.

Why do you think that both the Republicans and the Democrats in the U.S. are opposing this? Why they’re opposing it is because it takes too much power away from the elected governments, and it favours international corporations over the interests of the people. We have been elected here in the province by the people of this province to represent their interests, not the interests of corporate donors.

I also wish to raise another concern — that signing this deal will undermine our ability to be climate leaders. This government wants to have it all, and they’ll say anything they can to tell the people just anything. “We are going to sign TPP because it’s going to increase jobs.” They don’t even recognize that the only analyses out there say that we’re going to lose 58,000 jobs in Canada. “We’re going to do TPP because it’s good for the tech sector.” It’s the exact opposite. “We’re going to do this. We’re going to do that.” Say whatever it takes. “We’re going to be leaders in climate, but we’re going to go natural gas expansion.”

It just doesn’t work that way, and it’s about time that this government stands up and be truthful with British Columbians. If we’re serious about being climate leaders, we’ll have to implement more aggressive policies to reduce our emissions, and the Premier has committed to do that.

[1530]

Whether we believe it or not is another thing, but the Premier has committed to do that.

This deal will put us at a distinct trade disadvantage as follows. If other countries don’t follow suit, we’re in trouble. For example, if we want to reduce the emissions from our farms in order to combat methane, we might require or put incentives in place for farmers engaged in animal husbandry to install some methane-capturing technology. Maybe….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Innovative technology. I’m giving an example. No, it’s actually…. The Minister of Advanced Education…. I need to educate him. It is the cow burps, not cow others, that cause the methane. It’s from the
[ Page 12159 ]
multiple stomachs in their digestion. It’s coming from the mouth.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s right. Nasal juice.

However, it could make them uncompetitive against farmers, say, in New Zealand. Under TPP, Canada would not be allowed to put up trade barriers to level the playing field. So let’s suppose that New Zealand doesn’t put any innovative measures in place and we do, and then we say: “Hang on. Our farmers are now at an unfair disadvantage, so we’d better put some barrier up. They don’t have a carbon price. We do. We’d better put a carbon price on the boundary.” Well, we can be sued by the corporations involved, even though we’re operating as a Legislature in the best interests of the people.

There are a number of other problems around intellectual property, labour standards, agriculture, food and medicine. I have, frankly, a huge issue with the fact that the deal was negotiated in secret, and I think there’s ample evidence, as I’ve outlined, that this will cost our economy thousands upon thousands of jobs.

While I stand in opposition to the amendment to the motion, and I will stand in opposition to the motion itself because of these substantive concerns about the TPP, I also question this government’s cynical approach to this issue. At 6,000 pages in length, I seriously doubt that a single member in this House has even read a fraction of the provisions. I doubt that a single member in this House — with the exception of the member for Surrey-Whalley, because I know he’s probably read the whole thing — has actually read even a fraction of what’s there.

This is not the type of issue that government should be swinging wildly at, hoping to score cheap political victories by trying to put the opposition up about the Leap Manifesto, which some people brought from the floor in a conference. Shame on the government. Shame on the government for belittling the importance of the economy in B.C. by playing cheap political points.

Madame Speaker: On the amendment.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, on the amendment, the government’s…. As I point out, why I’m not supporting the amendment is that the political posturing that we see on the issue has real consequences for one of British Columbia’s greatest sectors, the technology sector.

This is a sector that this government is trying desperately to bring forward in a desperate hope to find something for the next election campaign. Yet this is the single worst thing that they could do to the tech sector in this province: support this bill. They need to come out unequivocally and say: “We’re opposed to this motion and the amendment.” If the amendment were to pass, inherent in that is that we’re going to study it some more, but ultimately, the decision we should be making today is that this is a bad motion.

These aren’t just my concerns, nor are they partisan concerns. This is what experts are actually saying. Another one: Jim Balsillie, the former co-CEO of BlackBerry. He said this, “In ten years from now, we’ll call that the signature worst thing in policy that Canada has ever done,” and that it threatens to make Canada a permanent underclass in the economy of selling ideas. Hardly supportive of the tech sector. The former CEO of RIM says it threatens to make Canada a permanent underclass in the economy of selling ideas.

What about Michael Geist, the Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa? Well, he said this is a made-in-America approach that’s advanced by the TPP. In an interview, he said it further: “I think when you look at the digital policies, things like copyright, intellectual property, privacy rules, Internet and Internet governance rules, there are some real harms that we find in this agreement.”

[1535]

Real harms to a sector that this government is claiming they’re supporting. Yet they’re throwing that sector collectively together under the bus in one fell swoop by putting this motion forward and even by taking it forward through the amendment to a committee for further discussions. There’s a huge hypocrisy out there.

Government has been going out of its way to try to court technology companies, talking about leadership in the sector and how government was there for them. Today we see that was all talk, as they swiftly cut the legs out from under this industry by making this signal to the market that technology is not welcome in B.C. We are speaking daily to Petronas, and Petronas is the one guiding British Columbia policy. Shameful.

I cannot support the amendment because, fundamentally, supporting the amendment implies that I see hope in the original motion as it’s written. As that motion represents a betrayal to B.C.’s technology industry, it’s a betrayal to the creative economy in British Columbia, it’s a betrayal to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, and it’s a betrayal to the democratic process that this cynical motion brought to us today is being debated here.

The government is saying: “We have no real desire to lead in this area, and we’re willing to use you, the technology sector, for political gain. We’ll take some photo ops with you. We’ll throw a conference, pretend like we’re doing something.” But this motion, even if sent to committee through the amendment, fundamentally throws the technology sector under the bus.

Let’s call it for what it is: a sellout — a sellout to Petronas, a sellout to British Columbians, a sellout to Canadians — and, let’s be honest, 58,000 job losses in Canada if the TPP were to go forward.
[ Page 12160 ]

V. Huntington: I’m somewhat hesitant to stand in the midst of a discussion that’s deteriorated into raw politics in this House, but I think it’s important to comment on the amendment from my perspective. I will also add: the politics of it is so apparent, when both the mover of the main motion and the mover of the amendment are no longer here to hear the discussion.

Madame Speaker: Member, it’s never appropriate to comment on the presence or absence of members in this chamber.

V. Huntington: I beg your pardon. I withdraw that comment. You’re quite right, Madame Speaker.

I am here under the obviously misinformed hope that I might learn something about what is becoming one of the most important trade agreements this country will ever sign. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is something that all of us need to understand if we’re going to represent our community in any public debate whatsoever on the issue. I wanted to find out and hope to find out from a debate in this House…. Even though we very seldom find out anything in debate in this House.

I wanted to find out: is it a good agreement? Is it a bad agreement? Is it going to create jobs, or is it going to cost jobs? Is it going to help the tech industry or hurt it? Is it going to kill the auto parts industry in eastern Canada or help it?

That’s not what we’re obviously here to discuss today. In an effort to support the amendment, I believe that it would be wise to send this to the Finance Committee; to send it to a public discussion with the people of this province; to learn from experts who might have a comment on it; to hear the public’s interest in it; and to, for once, participate in a public discourse that is an attempt to understand one of the more important economic initiatives that the Pacific Rim has undertaken, ever.

I support the amendment. I see no harm in sending this to a discussion that would invite the public to participate and in which all of us could learn something more about this important trade agreement.

C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendment to Motion 11. Just to clarify for those who are watching, this is an amendment to refer the motion to the Select Standing Committee on Finance “for robust and transparent discussion and public consultation on the long-term job creation and employment impacts” for British Columbians of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[1540]

I think it’s important to state that that’s what we’re talking about in this amendment. I appreciate and — with great respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — I never believe it’s wrong to give the public a say. I never believe it’s wrong to give an opportunity for the public to give their opinion on this agreement. I would agree with the member about the concerns that he’s raised, and I believe that the public will come forward with those concerns.

I believe making sure that we shine a light on this document is one of the most critical pieces that we need to do in all of this, because from the start, this has been an agreement that has anything but the light, that has been done behind closed doors, that has been secret, that has been done in the dark. We need to shine a light on this agreement. We need to shine a light and let people have an opportunity to be able to have a say.

I have to say, you know, that I never imagined that I could continue to be amazed by this government, but I am. I continue to be amazed by this government’s refusal to simply support what is a straightforward democratic principle: public consultation, listening to the public. That is an extraordinary statement — to think that a government would be against listening to the public.

Isn’t that why we all ran for office? Isn’t that why we are all here? Because we are here to represent the public? Not represent ourselves, not represent the friends that we have, but represent the public. Perhaps that is a symbol, and this motion is a symbol, of this government and how they’ve lost their way, a symbol of this government and the lack of interest they have in listening to the public or anyone who has an opinion that might be divergent from their own, that might be different than the Premier’s.

Asking the public what they think — a shocking amendment to bring forward. It’s amazing to me that we would even have to debate the opportunity to take what will have a huge impact, regardless of which side of this agreement you’re on, regardless of which side you feel is important and all of the issues. I’ll talk for a couple of minutes about those. Regardless of which side you’re on, it’s important for people to have a say. It’s important for people to be able to be part of a consultation for something that is going to have such an impact on our province, on our economy, on our public and on our country.

We have seen previously from this government, whether it’s people living in poverty, whether it’s the issue of the bus pass…. You could get into a long list. I think the best, or the worst, example of a lack of consultation, as we’re talking about in this amendment, would be the HST. I certainly would have imagined that this government would have learned something through the process of the HST and bringing in the HST about the importance of public consultation, about how critical it is to take issues to the public.

I heard the member across the way say: “Well, it takes courage to make a decision.” Well, you make smarter decisions if you listen to the people impacted first and then make the decision. It doesn’t mean everyone will be happy. It doesn’t mean you’re going to satisfy everyone. But it will be a much smarter decision. It will have a much better basis if you take the opportunity to actually listen to the people who are going to be impacted.
[ Page 12161 ]

On a trade agreement like this, with all of the concerns that have been raised, with all of the issues that are here, it’s basic to say: “Let’s give the public an opportunity to be heard.” I guess I’ve answered my own question, which is: the government learned nothing. The government learned absolutely nothing through the HST process.

I don’t understand why a government would be afraid of this. I don’t understand why a government would be afraid to take something like a trade agreement out to the public to have a discussion. Who acted like this? Who would do this often? Stephen Harper would do this often. Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada, would do this often, and we know what happened to him. We know the end result.

People don’t like it when their politicians think they know best without having a discussion with them first, without listening to their concerns, without standing up and taking the good and the bad, without listening to the issues that are raised. Yet that’s what we’ve seen.

I think it’s interesting to take a look at the direction that the federal government is taking in all of this, as I speak to the amendment. In fact, the federal government is looking at consultation. I want to quote from an open letter. That may be shocking, as well, that this actually went out from the minister.

[1545]

It says: “Many Canadians still have not made up their minds, and many more still have questions. That’s why our consultations” — and this is the federal government — “with the provinces, municipal officials, students, labour leaders and members, business representatives, academic experts and others are just the beginning of the examination needed to fully understand the TPP’s impact.” Some very important words and very important direction in that quote — transparent, a full discussion, including everyone.

Another part of that quote from the federal minister: “I have a strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP. In particular, that should include extensive non-partisan considerations, analysis and testimony from all regions, all sectors and all backgrounds.”

Why wouldn’t B.C. also consult? Why wouldn’t we take an opportunity to learn and listen from the businesses, groups and organizations who are all going to be impacted by this agreement? Important critical questions have been asked. I know we’ve heard other quotes, but I’d also like to include a quote from Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, who says the deal — which is a 6,000-page, mammoth and extremely complex document — should have been negotiated openly.

Michael Geist, the law professor, said: “There’s certainly a need for more study. The analysis to date suggests very limited economic gains for Canada in the TPP. That may be unsurprising, given that Canada already has trade deals with half the TPP. But it should leave government wondering whether the costs and regulatory upheaval are worth the effort.” Again, another idea, another approach, another argument for making sure that we have a public consultation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, David Lametti, said: “In our consultations thus far on the TPP, we have heard opinions for; we have heard opinions against. We have seen studies for; we have seen studies against. We’ve had representations from all sides. And it’s important that all of this be taken into consideration. That’s the work of a committee. That will be a decision that will come in front of parliament.”

Well, that’s what this amendment proposes. This amendment proposes that we give an opportunity for the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a structure already in place — we’re not creating a new structure; in fact, it’s a committee already in place — to take on an in-depth discussion and a proper consultation on the impacts that this agreement will have on British Columbia.

Again, Joseph Stiglitz says…. He’s speaking about a particular part of the TPP agreement, what he calls the worst part of the agreement. “It used to be the basic principle was polluter-pay,” Stiglitz said. “If you damage the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts the ability to pollute or does something to climate change, you could be sued and have to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars.” He also says there’s a provision that could be used to prevent the raising of the minimum wage.

Well, I would expect that that’s a fair concern for every legislator. It should be a fair concern for every legislator in this House. It should be an issue that matters to everyone in this House. Why wouldn’t we consult?

The TPP covers 40 percent of the world economy — 40 percent. And the Premier believes she knows better than everybody else — that we can simply pass this, and it’ll be done and agreed to? There have been businesses that have said this will open up foreign markets. We certainly believe in trade. We believe in a strong economy. That’s critical for our province. But there are other business leaders who have come forward with some real, genuine concerns — issues around intellectual property. Those are big worries for our province, for our country.

Given the opportunities for high tech in British Columbia, given the incredible contribution that they’re making to our economy — and have the opportunity to continue to make to our economy — why would we not consult on an agreement that concerns have been raised about, having a huge impact on high tech in a negative way?

[1550]

There are concerns about digital policies that, in fact, will benefit big corporations at the expense of the public. There are worries about the lack of transparency. Intellectual property I’ve mentioned. There are worries about copyright. I mean, these are just basic questions that we should have the opportunity to be able to explore.
[ Page 12162 ]
They bring concerns about new threats to journalists and whistle-blowers, who won’t have the opportunity to be able to be upfront about the kinds of concerns that they want to raise and bring forward.

Barriers in protecting personal privacy. We know the issues around privacy. Certainly with this government, you would think that that’s something that we should explore and that we should have an opportunity to deal with.

Prohibit open-source mandates. Well, again, if you’re looking at the high-tech industry, open source is an area where people are looking at expanding opportunities. I know many of the universities are looking at open source around textbooks and around getting information to students. Again, a huge concern.

Just in closing on the amendment, I have to ask the basic simple question of this government, which is: why? Why is this government afraid? Why is this government afraid to ask the public what they think of something that’s going to have such a huge impact on British Columbia and Canada? Why doesn’t the government want these questions raised? Why does the Premier think she knows better than anybody else?

Well, that’s not what we feel on this side of the House. We want an opportunity for business, for labour, for communities, for the public to engage in a robust, good discussion on the TPP, come forward with their issues and concerns. Let’s make sure that that information is gathered before the Premier decides that she’s going to jump and suggest that we approve it without any kind of transparency issues done — and so many other issues.

[1555]

Madame Speaker: The question is on the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

[1600]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Madame Speaker: The Minister of Community and Sport seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming a class of students from Surrey Christian school, their teacher Lorraine Whitmarsh and their chaperones. Please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

On the main motion.

Hon. T. Wat: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the main motion. As Minister of International Trade, I would like to speak to the reason that led our government to introduce this motion.

Before that, I’m going to speak about the importance. I would like to inform the House today that I wrote to the federal Minister of International Trade expressing our government’s strong support for Canada’s ratification of the TPP. This is one of the largest and most competitive trade deals to ever be established. Including my letter, there are more than 70 companies that are supporting our motion and our effort to urge the government to ratify the TPP. Seven of them are technology companies.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The importance of the TPP agreement cannot be overstated for its potential to grow the B.C. economy and create jobs for British Columbians. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the largest and most comprehensive trade deals in the world. Being a part of it means that B.C.’s high-quality goods and services will be on equal footing in a market of 800 million people and a GDP of $28 trillion.

The greatest opportunity for B.C. business comes in sectors like seafood, agrifoods, forestry, technology and
[ Page 12163 ]
manufactured goods, where high tariffs will be reduced or eliminated. British Columbia also has some of the world’s brightest engineers, technicians, international education firms and environmental service providers who will all benefit from increased access to this market.

B.C. has now pressed the federal government for better access to the Asia-Pacific market. Through this agreement, we would get that access in key markets such as Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore. Currently, British Columbia ships $23 billion in goods to member countries. That’s two-thirds of our international exports. Lifting trade barriers so this market will grow exports even more will be a major benefit to B.C. companies and the provincial economy. For example, B.C. has forecast that the reduced duties and trade barriers will increase B.C.’s exports by $320 million each year.

The agreement also has many other benefits. It covers all aspects of trade, including improved market access for financial services and government procurement; strong standards for the protection and the enforcement of intellectual property rights; and enforceable labour and environmental protection rules.

Ultimately, the agreement’s most immediate and tangible benefit is the elimination of export duties. That’s why the B.C. government’s trade policy team aggressively pursued tariff elimination on priority B.C. exports. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes a number of tariff eliminations that will be a huge benefit to B.C. companies. We know this because we have seen the benefits that other free trade agreements have had on B.C. business.

[1605]

Let me talk about how different sectors will benefit from this TPP agreement. First, seafood. Before the Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement went into effect, Vancouver-based Pacific Rim Shellfish wasn’t shipping any products to Korea at all. Now they are selling fish and seafood there for the first time, with their first shipment being sent in December 2015.

In terms of the TPP agreement, Pacific Rim Shellfish has informed my ministry that this agreement could double or triple its sales. Tariffs on Canadian seafood are so high right now that these products are considered a luxury item in Asia. Coming from Asia, I surely know that most Asians would love to have Canadian, and especially British Columbian, seafood. But it’s so expensive that most of them cannot afford it. If tariffs were removed, many more people in Asia would be able to afford their seafood. Because of the new market access and additional sales generated by this agreement, Pacific Rim Shellfish anticipates it could hire more people at their plant on Granville Island.

The agreement will also benefit small coastal communities around British Columbia. That’s because a lot of the jobs in seafood harvesting are in remote communities such as Port Hardy, Masset and Bella Coola, for example. The increased demand in Asia would be a big boost to those rural economies where a lot of the seafood comes from.

On the agrifood sector. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will also help B.C. companies take advantage of significant opportunities in the agrifood sector. For example, Japan’s and Vietnam’s tariffs, which range between 17 percent and 30 percent on certain B.C. fruits and vegetables, will be reduced or eliminated.

Creston-based fruit shipper Global Fruit has already seen demand in Asia steadily increase over the past decade and expects the TPP to help grow sales even more. For example, Global Fruit started exporting only 60,000 pounds of cherries in 2002. Now they expect to ship 12 million pounds this year alone. Japan is one of the main markets, and lower tariffs there will make B.C. cherries even more affordable to Japanese consumers. That means more cherry shipments to Japan and more jobs for British Columbians.

Technology sector. The B.C. tech sector, one of the fastest growing in the province, will also see important benefits from the TPP. With chapters on intellect property rights, e-commerce and telecommunications, this agreement recognizes that not only is technology a quickly growing sector; it is one of the most important drivers of our modern economy.

For example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership recognizes that electronic commerce is very much a part of our daily life. This includes everything from on-line banking to streaming TV shows or buying goods on Amazon. Through this agreement, member countries have agreed to a set of rules for e-commerce that also address the latest barriers to electronic trade. This means that every time you buy something on line from another country, you won’t have to pay duties and your personal information will be more secure. This is certainly good news for B.C. consumers.

Another key component of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that concerns technology is intellectual property protection rules. B.C. is home to some of the most innovative companies in the country. We want to make sure their ideas are protected. This is where intellectual property protection comes in.

There has been some criticism in the media lately about how the agreement could impact these rights. However, in a report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, intellectual property lawyer Richard Owens calls these claims confusing, troubling and alarmist. Owens states that Canada’s current intellectual property laws are already almost identical to what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Owens adds that Canadian innovators will be better served by predictable, universal intellectual property rules in all member countries.

[1610]

If Canada is left out of the agreement…. Ultimately, Canadians must consider what could happen if the agreement goes ahead without Canada’s participation. We fore-
[ Page 12164 ]
cast that B.C.’s GDP would decrease by as much as $197 million every year if the agreement were to go ahead without us. That’s because our job creators, exporters and manufacturers, would be cut off from selling competitively to millions of new customers around the world. Being left out would also make the Canadian market less attractive to trade partners. For example, if the United States were to join without Canada, other member countries would be more willing to trade with the U.S. than with us.

We have seen this happen before. In 2012, the U.S. signed a free trade agreement with Korea. Canadian exports to Korea dropped by about one-third in the two years after the U.S. agreement went into force. That’s a reduction of about $1.5 billion. Now that Canada has a free trade agreement with Korea, B.C. has witnessed agrifood and seafood exports grow by almost 60 percent. Exports are also up for forestry products, pulp and paper products and several other commodities.

Let me conclude by emphasizing our support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. As consumers, British Columbians could see lower costs on goods and services because of reduced or eliminated tariffs and other barriers on foreign imports. B.C. companies shipping their goods overseas will have greater access to overseas markets.

The agreement will also have a direct impact on B.C.’s economy. B.C.’s GDP will increase by about $325 million annually, and B.C. is expected to gain about 2,500 full-time jobs once the agreement is implemented. Furthermore, as Canada’s Pacific gateway, B.C. stands to benefit from the expected increase in bilateral trade between Asia and North America. Trade in goods and services will flow through our transportation infrastructure, creating jobs and economic growth here in the province.

Moving forward, we’ll work with our federal government throughout the ratification process. We respect the government of Canada’s commitment to consult with Canadians on this agreement. Given the benefits it holds for British Columbia, we hope that it will be ratified in a timely manner.

By making it easier for trade and investment between Canada and Trans-Pacific Partnership member countries, for us, the key outcome of the agreement is very clear: more jobs and economic opportunities for British Columbians.

Hon. N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to stand and take my place in support of the motion.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is good for B.C. businesses and consumers. The agreement is vital to the success of the B.C. jobs plan. It will open up new markets throughout the Pacific Rim for B.C. exports, creating new jobs and driving economic growth at home.

The market is huge. Member countries have a combined GDP of $28 trillion and a population of 800 million people.

The agreement ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business from one of the 12 member countries. Those countries are ours, the United States, Japan, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile and Peru.

B.C. goods exports are expected to increase through the TPP by $320 million annually as a result of this agreement. Jobs. We are expected to gain 2,500 new jobs as a result of the agreement. B.C.’s GDP is expected to increase by $325 million annually, again as a result of this agreement.

As we’ve already heard, the opportunity cost of not moving ahead with TPP would mean that B.C.’s GDP would decrease, potentially as much as $197 million annually.

I’d like to talk specifically about some consumer benefits and benefits for agrifoods here in British Columbia. The TPP will have a variety of benefits for the average British Columbian. As consumers, British Columbians could see lower costs on goods and services as a result of reduced or eliminated tariffs and non-tariff barriers on foreign imports into our province and our country. Also, B.C. companies shipping their goods overseas would have greater access to overseas markets.

[1615]

One other thing is, by moving forward with TPP and having greater trade, we would actually see an improvement in B.C.’s food security. I’ll talk about that a lot more in a few minutes.

The greatest opportunities for B.C. businesses come from sectors — as we’ve known, as we’ve heard — like seafood, agrifoods, forestry, technology and manufactured goods, where high tariffs would be reduced or eliminated under the agreement. I have just a couple of quotes from some of those industries.

From the forestry industry, from Canfor:

“‘From our perspective, agreements that work to remove tariffs and other barriers to our products are good news,’ said Wayne Guthrie, a senior vice-president for sales and marketing at Canfor Corp., one of Canada’s largest forestry companies. ‘About $1 billion in Canadian forest products were subject to tariffs last year, so we are hopeful the TPP will improve access and eliminate unfair treatment of Canadian products in key markets.’”

From the mining industry:

“The Mining Association of Canada welcomed the deal, saying it will provide greater access for metals and mineral producers. The sector exported an average of $158.6 billion U.S. per year to the members of the TPP deal. Canadian exporters face tariff walls in key countries, including 40 percent in Vietnam and 50 percent in Malaysia.

“‘This will be beneficial to Canada’s mining sector,’ association president Pierre Gratton said. ‘I am not expecting any downside. The risks to our sector would come from Canada pulling out.’”

Other sectors, like Ritchie Bros., have come out in favour of the TPP. Our own Burnaby-based Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers Ltd. — the world’s largest auction house for used industrial equipment — CEO Ravi Saligram said TPP would “buoy the overall Canadian economy,” as businesses make new investments and build new infrastructure to handle the increase in trade.
[ Page 12165 ]

Those are just some of the industries that have come out in favour of the TPP.

I’d like now to focus specifically on some in agrifoods. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association: “This is really fantastic news for Canadian beef producers,” says CCA president Dave Solverson. “Canada’s beef producers have long needed to have equal access to these important markets in order to compete with Australian and U.S. beef. Now, through this agreement, Canada will be receiving the same preferential access to these markets as its competitors, levelling the playing field for Canadian beef producers once and for all.”

Also, last night I had an opportunity to meet with my colleagues and the B.C. seafood association. They are fully in support of us moving forward with TPP. We had a good discussion about it, and it was quite clear that they share the same sentiments of the speakers that I’ve quoted just a few minutes ago.

Now, region by region in this province, we have benefits that will help agrifoods. In the Cariboo, for example — the canola seed and oil. Tariffs on canola seed and oil will be eliminated over time in key markets like Japan, Vietnam, Australia, which will benefit B.C. canola producers.

Cattle. Tariffs on beef in important markets like Japan, Vietnam and Peru will be significantly reduced or eliminated, which will greatly benefit B.C. cattle ranchers.

In the Kootenays — cherries, blueberries and cranberries. These are already in high demand in Asia. This agreement will help more growers access new markets. Tariffs of up to 30 percent will be eliminated over time in priority markets like Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia as a result of this agreement.

Wine — sparkling wine and ice wine. Tariffs as high as 59 percent will be eliminated over time in key markets, again, like Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. These significant tariff reductions will create new opportunities in emerging markets for B.C. wine exporters.

On the mainland, southwest region — fish and seafood. The seafood sector could see significant gains from the agreement, with more than 95 percent of fish and seafood duties being eliminated, thus generating a great price advantage for B.C. exports as compared to today.

Fruits and vegetables. B.C. exporters of tomatoes, mushrooms, bell peppers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs as high as 20 percent in markets like Vietnam and all other member countries over time. That’s in the southwest region of the province.

[1620]

This will also benefit up in the north — the north coast, Nechako region, including Vanderhoof, which is the geographic centre of British Columbia. I say that for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Fish and seafood will be benefiting up in the Nechako region and the north coast of our province.

In the Thompson-Okanagan, which the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Premier and the members up and down the Okanagan and in the Thompson advocate for on a regular basis in this House, there will be benefits as well.

Apples. Tariffs as high as 17 percent on fresh apples will be eliminated over time in markets like Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia. We have others, of course — cherries and blueberries and cranberries — which I’ve already mentioned in detail. And I couldn’t go without saying that it would also benefit our wine, sparkling wine and icewine industries in the Thompson-Okanagan.

On Vancouver Island and the coast, we would also see benefits in the fish and seafood industry, of course — I won’t repeat what they are, as I’ve already said it for the record — and wine, sparkling wine and icewine, amongst others.

Now, last year when the TPP was being negotiated, of course, by the federal government, we had representatives there from British Columbia helping as much as we could. We also had representatives from B.C. industries like the chicken industry, amongst others. We know how hard they all worked to make sure that the previous government included some compensation for any relaxation in the supply management scheme.

We fully support supply management, and we want to continue to make sure that supply management in B.C. is strong moving forward, even with TPP. The current federal government has indicated that there will be compensation provided to Canada’s supply management sectors, including but not limited to dairy, egg and poultry.

We look forward to seeing the details of the agreement, but my federal counterpart, Minister Lawrence MacAulay, has repeatedly insisted that the supply management sector will be compensated. In a phone call that I had with him and the other provincial and territorial Ag ministers a couple of weeks ago, he reiterated that. I’m sure when we meet in Calgary this summer, all the FPT Ag ministers, we will be discussing that one more time, and I fully expect the current federal government to come through with compensation, as well, for those sectors.

Now, it’s not in a vacuum that we continue to support TPP, because it benefits not only consumers directly but also benefits the agrifood industry. We had a record year last year, $12.3 billion in agrifood receipts. That’s a 5.9 percent increase from the year before. That was a record year from the year before that, a 3.5 percent increase year over year. We’re continuing to see record years, year over year, in agrifoods.

For me, that $12.3 billion is an important number, but included in that is the $3 billion that we have in exports. The $3 billion in exports, out of the $12.3 billion, was a record year, as well, because of our trade agreements that we’ve done either bilaterally or in larger trade agreements with other countries.

The TPP is one more of those, along with CETA, our North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade agreements that we have, to continue to grow agrifoods
[ Page 12166 ]
in this province. It’s not only for the sake of the 55,000 people that are directly employed in agrifoods but also for the sake of all those people whose jobs count on our strong agrifood sector — the people who supply those trucks to the agrifood sector, the people that supply robotic milking machines, the people that supply a host of other technology and seeds and other equipment and operating products to that agrifood sector.

That’s a very important part of our economy in British Columbia, and it’s extremely important that we continue to grow it. By using TPP, we actually will see not only an increase in intercountry trade with those other countries in agrifoods; we’ll also see an increase in the amount of economic activity in all the industries that support our agrifood sector.

We have approximately 20,000 farm families in B.C. We want to see more people on the land, we want to see more land in production, and we want to see more productivity from that land. These are key objectives in our five-year agrifood and seafood strategic plan.

We expect, over the next five years, to go from $12.3 billion to $15 billion, and exports are a big part of that. So every time we have an opportunity to say yes to increasing our trade with other countries, we want to say yes and embrace that.

[1625]

The industry has said yes to this TPP, we are saying yes to the TPP, and we are asking the opposition members to make it unanimous and also say yes when it comes to the vote on the TPP. Not only will it help the industry itself to continue the record year-over-year growth in agrifoods and seafoods; it will also help to continue our path towards stronger B.C. food security.

As history has shown us through the decades, through the millennia, at some point in the future, mankind will find some way of causing another world war, or some pestilence will hit us, or something will happen where we’ll see our borders close. We want to make sure that we continue to grow agrifoods right here in B.C. so that when the day, if ever, and I hope it never comes…. But if ever that day comes, we’ll be able to be even stronger in feeding ourselves.

We’ve come a long way. We’re probably one of the strongest ones in the country as far as self-reliance on our food. We have to continue to grow on that. That’s really a big chunk of why we have our 20 action steps and our B.C. agrifood and seafood strategic plan.

I see this growth in exports as a great opportunity to strengthen our agrifood sector, to provide British Columbians with what they really want from agrifoods, which is safe, good, reliable food that they can consume here locally, that we will have available to us should ever our borders close. Those exports, of course, won’t be exported anymore. They’ll be redirected back to British Columbians. So it’s important to continue to grow the strength of our agrifood sector, and I see this TPP agreement as one great way to make sure we continue to work towards that.

In closing, I’d just like to make very clear that while I do see that the member for Surrey-Whalley, in representing his party, has said in the past that his position is clear as to why, at this stage, the TPP should be opposed, I would hope that with the debate we have in this House, he will change his mind and that all the members on the other side of the House will change their minds and vote for the TPP. It’ll be best for not only agrifoods but also for a whole number of industries and for the general consumer right here in British Columbia.

D. Plecas: I’m pleased to rise today and take my place in the debate on this motion. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is one of the largest and most comprehensive trade deals in the entire world. It’s incredibly good for B.C. businesses, and it’s incredibly good for B.C. consumers.

The deal encompasses 12 countries, and the ratification process is currently underway. I’m reminded that while there are 12 countries now, there’s every indication that other countries will be jumping on board. These are significant trading partners with British Columbia.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, British Columbia will benefit from increased bilateral trade between North America and other TPP markets in Asia-Pacific. This agreement will open up new markets throughout the Pacific Rim for British Columbia, and it will spur economic growth and job creation right here at home.

There’s a reason we are number one in Canada in economic growth and job creation. We’ve been focusing on diversifying and growing our economy and supporting long-term job creation. We have more people working than ever before, and opening up our markets to more countries in the Asia-Pacific region will help B.C. businesses continue to grow.

This deal ensures B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business from one of the 12 member countries. We’ve been working on strengthening and diversifying our trade relations with Asia for many years. In particular, our updated trade strategy, “Raising our game in Asia,” focuses on growing trade with member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Hon. Speaker, 65 percent of B.C. exports currently go to TPP member countries. Having a B.C. trade presence in Southeast Asia will provide a platform for B.C. companies to take advantage of the many trade and investment opportunities created by the region’s growing economy. As well, B.C. companies would be well placed to take advantage of investment opportunities that will emerge under a ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

[1630]

As a result of TPP, exports of B.C. goods are expected to increase by $320 million a year, we’re expected to gain some 2,500 jobs, and our GDP could increase by as much as $325 million a year.
[ Page 12167 ]

If the agreement were to go ahead without Canada, the negative impacts for British Columbia exporters would be immense. Our job creators, exporters, manufacturers would all be cut off from selling competitively to millions of new customers around the world. Our exporters would have to deal with tariffs and non-trade tariff barriers that are currently in effect, making us less competitive, compared to other TPP countries.

Our priority for international trade agreements has always been a fair and open marketplace where B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business in the world. British Columbia’s attractive fiscal climate, business incentives, skilled labour force and diversified economy all offer significant opportunities for growth and investment. Our international trade partnerships have a direct impact on the growth of jobs in this province. We are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment networks, and working on partnerships and MOUs.

I’d just like to take some time to highlight a sector that will benefit from TPP, one that is also significant to my constituency of Abbotsford South. That sector is the aerospace industry. In B.C., there are over 160 companies in the aerospace industry. B.C.’s aerospace sector generates $1.3 billion in direct GDP and employs more than 8,000 workers throughout the province.

In our community of Abbotsford, the aerospace industry is an important one, one that provides many high-paying jobs and world-class products and services. In fact, the aerospace industry is one of the three biggest employers in the Fraser Valley. We are home, at Abbotsford International Airport, to world-leading aerospace companies that offer a world-class capability in niche areas, such as rotary aircraft, special mission aircraft, support services and aviation training.

We have Marshall Aerospace, which has their Canadian head offices at the airport. Abbotsford is their base for strategic growth in Canada and North America. Another world-class company, Conair Aviation, recently announced that they will have a new flight simulator to train firefighting pilots from all over the world — one of the few places in the world that does this. Cascade Aerospace, Chinook Helicopters and other industry leaders are also based at Abbotsford International Airport.

With our geographic advantage, talented workforce and established trade partners around the world, B.C. is positioning itself as a leader in the aerospace industry. This sector represents a tremendous opportunity for jobs and investment in the province. It is a key sector for growth in B.C., with the potential to benefit the province’s economy for decades to come.

The TPP will offer new opportunities for Canada’s aerospace sector by providing greater certainty and predictability for exports of aerospace-related goods and services. The TPP will facilitate service trade by reducing barriers and improving transparency for B.C. aerospace companies. For example, the deal will immediately remove tariffs on 5 percent of aircraft engine parts destined for Australia. A large majority of countries have agreed to new commitments for services related to air transport, while Australia, Chile and Mexico have agreed to new commitments for aircraft maintenance and repair services.

The aerospace growth potential around the world is tremendous. We in B.C. want to be part of that. Globally, over 38,000 new aircraft, valued at some $5.6 trillion, are expected to be needed over the next 20 years alone. This includes 12,000 new aircraft, valued at $1.9 trillion, just in the Asia-Pacific region. B.C. is well placed to take advantage of this growth as we continue to expand our aerospace industry.

[1635]

It is truly disappointing that the NDP reject TPP, because it is an agreement that will benefit businesses and consumers throughout this province. It’s imperative that our companies be on an equal footing so that they can compete globally. We want to work in partnership with workers to build a stronger British Columbia. We will do that by saying yes to economic development every chance we get.

D. McRae: Today I rise to speak to the motion in support of the TPP, but I would like to begin by just making a couple of caveats. I’m sure the members opposite have heard, and members on this side of the House, that the federal government has yet to ratify this agreement. Those consultations and considerations are underway.

While the agreement was reached in late 2015, there were 12 original signatories to the agreement. There is something that we haven’t talked about in the chamber to date so far, and I think it’s important to have it on record. It’s an awkward way to get to support. There are 12 member nations, but there is a formula to see if there is a trigger to make it happen. There has to be a minimum of six of the 12 nations agree to sign TPP. Because of another formula within the agreement, 85 percent of the GDP of the 12 original signatories have to be part of that.

It effectively gives two nations, Japan and the United States, a veto. If neither nation were to support TPP…. That is totally within their right, and there are interesting debates going on in both countries, as we speak. If either nation were to not join, TPP, as I understand it, would be effectively null and void. There will be other trade agreements, of course, that will take place around the world.

The last caveat is that my comments will revolve around a specific area that’s important to my community, the region I’m from and the sector which I think is absolutely essential to British Columbians. That is the seafood sector. I want to talk about many things to do with the seafood sector today, but I’m not going to talk about the vibrant sport-fishing industry, which is obviously very important to communities large and small, especially rural British Columbia.
[ Page 12168 ]

Last summer I had the opportunity to be in the north Island, and I was shocked by the number of individuals who were there from places outside of British Columbia, outside of Canada, enjoying what I think is something that is very special to our communities. I’m not going to talk about how important seafood is to farmers markets, and I’m not going to talk about where seafood plays such an important role in so many of our restaurants.

In fact, I was thinking that if one stands on the steps of the Legislature…. You think about the restaurants you can see from those steps, whether it is Steamship Grill, the Commons, Pescatores, Milestones. In the distance, you can see the Docks. What do all five of those restaurants have in common? All five of them figure seafood very prominently on their menus, and people come, both tourists and locals, to enjoy something that we have in British Columbia that other areas perhaps do not have in such bounty.

Now, how important is seafood to British Columbians? Well, B.C. residents harvest more than 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants. In fact, we lead Canada in sales of wild salmon, halibut, crab, rockfish…. In case you’re not sure what rockfish are, it could be a cod or a big, ugly red fish with big eyes. Snapper is another example. Very tasty. Hake. Tuna.

Believe it or not — some people in British Columbia don’t always realize this, because they’re not the popular fish for many — dogfish, though, is important. Skate, farmed salmon, clams, oysters, scallops.

Perhaps one of the uglier fish we actually harvest from the marine environment — the sablefish. I had a chance to enjoy the appearance of one last night, though not to eat. They are incredibly ugly, but they are incredibly tasty. Of course, the other incredibly ugly species of the deep, the geoduck, which again, is very tasty.

Now, total sales of primary seafood production are approaching $1 billion. As we speak, around the coast of British Columbia, starting perhaps as far south as maybe Victoria harbour, stretching all the way up maybe to Stewart, Alaska, along the coastline, there are captains and employees, deckhands, of about 2,500 vessels, preparing for the fishing season. Some of these vessels are very large, and some can be very small — shockingly small to people who may not recognize it. Literally, sometimes in the range of 20 to 24 feet long.

In 2014, those 2,500 vessels and the men and women who go out on them, often under very extreme circumstances — areas where I perhaps would not wish to be part of — are able to harvest those said 100 species. We were able as a province to export almost $1 billion worth of seafood to 74 nations on the planet.

[1640]

The thing that strikes me, though, is that while it’s so important in terms of value and so important in terms of market access, who do we sell to? There literally is the big three. The big three take about 84 percent of B.C.’s exports for seafood. The United States takes about 55 percent; China, 18 percent; Japan, 11 percent. From there, that $1 billion drops off dramatically. Hong Kong is the next largest market; 3 percent of our seafood exports go to Hong Kong. And the fifth-largest importer of our product: the country of Vietnam with 2 percent.

But I challenge that there is huge potential and change coming, change that we need to be part of. I’m going to quote. One of the things when we talk about economics…. I am not an economist by any stretch. Everybody throws around their quotes of economists, on both sides of the House. I figure it would only be appropriate if I throw my economist into the mix as well. I just picked one at random. I picked Jack Mintz. I just picked him out of thin air. What does he say?

Jack Mintz says: “TPP is a good thing for the Canadian economy that will give access to a large market.” This is the important part that I thought was kind of interesting. I will definitely say that Jack Mintz knows more about the economy than I ever will. “And if Mexico and the United States are part of it and we are not” — again, the key point — “that will put our Canadian businesses at a disadvantage in a world in which businesses operate in supply chains.” They recognize that there are challenges and markets to be accessed.

Now, B.C. has much to be proud of, as well, when we talk about our seafood resources. The other thing that I’d like to just bring up to sort of tie into this, if I may. In July 2008, this government committed to help B.C.’s commercial fisheries obtain certification from the Marine Stewardship Council. I think that’s also important as well. We talk about growing market access and making sure that people have access to protein and food just like we do in North America. We want to make sure we do so in a place where the resource is not put in peril.

Under the Marine Stewardship Council, there are a number of requirements for certification. There are three principles that must be met. The harvest has to be sustainable for the fish population to ensure that fishing can continue indefinitely. Secondly, fishing operations must be managed to maintain the health and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends. The fishery, thirdly, must meet the laws and regulations for ensuring sustainable fishery practices.

This is making sure that not just the fish will be there for us — us who are alive today. To get that certification, one has to actually make sure that it looks like that species will be there for generations to come and will not be put at risk.

An example where that MSC certification is attained are products that we are very proud of — whether it is chum salmon; pink salmon; sockeye salmon; the aforementioned spiny dogfish, which we’re not a big fan of in appearance; halibut; the tasty albacore tuna; sablefish, mentioned once again; and of course, hake.

In fact, I had the opportunity to look at some quotes from people who actually make their living from the B.C.
[ Page 12169 ]
seafood sector. I picked two individuals. One is a lady named Christina Burridge of the B.C. Seafood Alliance. What does she say? She was referring…. This is an example that perhaps is not absolutely relevant, because it’s dealing with a free trade agreement with South Korea. But since South Korea and TPP are all intertwined, I think I will use it. “Tariffs on exports of seafood to South Korea are 20 percent or more for salmon, halibut, sablefish, prawn, herring roe…”

Interjection.

D. McRae: I will get to the relevance, hon. Member from across the way.

“…sea urchins, geoduck, shrimp and prawns.” That’s a 20 percent tariff. And it’s a 10 to 20 percent tariff for groundfish.

She says, “Clearly, a free trade agreement with South Korea is good for our industry and great for the west coast. Trade” — and this is where it gets to relevant — “means jobs and a higher standard of living” for her members and Canadians.

I’m sure you don’t have to agree, hon. Members all across the way, that she is correct. She is speaking for her members, people who live in my riding and in your riding and in your riding. Those are individuals who benefit by making sure that Canadian products have access without tariffs.

In fact, her colleague, Chris Sporer, who is a member of the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia…. Again, I’m not trying to make a direct relation here, but listen to this statement: “A Canada-Korea free trade agreement will be good for Canada’s Pacific wild seafood industry. The U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, which came into effect….”

Interjection.

D. McRae: Hon. Member, I listened to you very respectfully, and I didn’t heckle. You’re welcome to heckle me, by all means, but just remember that I didn’t heckle you.

[1645]

“…is being seized on by our Alaskan competitors.” What is he referring to? He is saying that competition will move forward and take advantage of space when we have a disadvantage. “We cannot afford to be left behind…. Reducing tariffs on seafood will open up markets to high-quality Canadian Pacific seafood, and this will” — what does he say? — “translate into jobs and prosperity for British Columbians.”

Why does the TPP have the potential to be incredibly beneficial to B.C. seafood? Currently, our seafood exports face tariffs of up to 15 percent from Japan and Malaysia. We have tariffs that are up to 34 percent for access into Vietnam and 5 percent in New Zealand. The world is looking for good-quality protein. The world is demanding it. British Columbia has the ability to have a sustainable fishery which will provide that protein and that quality of life to individuals and which we are so lucky to have in British Columbia.

If the TPP is ratified, 66 percent of fish and seafood will be duty-free when imported into Japan. All remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 15 years. If the TPP is ratified, 83 percent of fish and seafood will be duty-free when they are imported into Vietnam, and the remaining duties will be eliminated in ten years. All duties will be removed on fish and seafood that go into Malaysia.

In my community, when I go down to the docks, there are individuals who benefit from making sure we have access for Canadian goods. On the north Island, there are those members. In Nanaimo–North Cowichan and in Cowichan Valley, there are those members. In Port Alberni — definitely. Prince Rupert — definitely. Port Hardy — by all means. From across coastal British Columbia, the seafood producers are saying: “We want access to market share so that our people can have employment and can do their jobs to make sure the world has adequate access to food and resources.”

I support this motion.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to be able to make a few comments today. Obviously, today we’re talking about the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the possibility of how we move forward on that. But in essence, we’re also talking about the importance of trade, in general, to the province of British Columbia.

I guess, from our perspective…. I mean, we’ve had more debate about an amendment today that says “let’s put this off and not talk about it today” than we’ve actually had about the TPP and about trade in general. That is particularly disappointing. Particularly the member for Surrey-Whalley has a lot to contribute to debate in this House on a regular basis. In fact, in March, what he said was: “I think I’ve made my position clear as to why, at this stage, it should be opposed, and we’ll have that debate in the House perhaps later on.”

Well, today is the day. Today is the day we have the opportunity to stand up and talk about the principles that differentiate the views that we have in this Legislature. Instead, what we get is a debate about a motion that says: “Let’s just put this off. Put it down the road and have a conversation at some point later.” That may be adequate for the members opposite, but trade in British Columbia is a core piece of the fabric of this province.

Every day when I look at what it is we do in this province and what it is we do well, one of the things that’s absolutely essential about trade agreements in general…. Yes, today, we’re talking about the TPP, but it’s much bigger than that. We have members on the opposite side that today are unprepared to stand up and say that they oppose an ideological position that says: “We’re going to get rid of trade deals in this country.” And we’re not just talk-
[ Page 12170 ]
ing about policy or ideology. What we’re talking about are people’s jobs in British Columbia and in Canada.

The members opposite can chuckle. I’m happy to read out the statement that was discussed and is going to continue to be discussed. I’m sure there are members opposite that actually fully embrace the whole concept of the Leap document that was presented. I can tell you that when we’re talking about trade today and about the TPP, there is a sentence in that document that is absolutely unbelievable to me at a time when Canadians, Albertans and British Columbians are losing their jobs because of low commodity prices and when they can’t feed their families.

[1650]

They are leaving their homes. They are, in fact, coming to British Columbia. Here’s what the members opposite endorse, at least from a policy perspective. Listen to this. This is the kind of message that British Columbians need to hear, except there’s deafening silence on the other side today. “The drop in oil prices has temporarily relieved the pressure to dig up fossil fuels as rapidly as high-risk technologies will allow. This pause in frenetic expansion should not be viewed as a crisis but as a gift.” We are talking about people’s jobs. When we talk about the Peace River area today, there are people who are being impacted by the commodity prices that we face today.

The issue of trade is essential. It is about creating goods and sharing them with the world. Let me give some statistics about what happens in British Columbia today. By the deafening silence on the other side and, in fact, an amendment that says, “Let’s not talk about this now,” we’re actually…. Well, actually, the member opposite whose quote I just read, who was eagerly looking forward to a debate in the House, is remarkably silent today. He actually said we would debate this in the Legislature. Here’s the chance. Instead, we get an amendment and silence after that point.

Why do trade agreements matter? Why do trade agreements like the TPP matter? Well, because when we actually have boom and bust, it’s very difficult on citizens and British Columbians. One of the things the trade agreements do is give us that buffer, that protection during those difficult, difficult times.

Trade agreements allow us to maintain and grow our market share. You know, this afternoon we heard from the members opposite that we need to get out and talk to people. Here’s what I heard when I have done manufacturing round tables across British Columbia. We do things in British Columbia that people nowhere else in the world do. We are so exceptional at those things.

Sometimes those small businesses aren’t quite sure how to increase their market share and look at a global opportunity. Our job is to make sure that we are equipping those companies, that we are using every tool we have to make sure that they can take that excellence and share it with the rest of the world. That’s why trade agreements matter. It’s why they matter to British Columbians.

It is no secret that British Columbia is leading the economy. We are the leading economic driver in Canada today. That’s no secret. All you have to do is simply….

The fact of the matter is that if it was just us saying that, then I can understand the members opposite standing up and talking about that and being very cynical. But let’s be clear. It is major Canadian banks. It is the Conference Board of Canada. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks ago, TD Bank confirmed that B.C. is expected to maintain robust growth over the coming quarters. And just last Thursday, Moody’s affirmed the triple-A rating and stable outlook.

Why does that happen? Much of that growth comes from export-oriented manufacturing. When you say no to trade agreements, when you say no to the TPP, you are saying no to economic growth and job creation in British Columbia. If you look at manufactured goods, for example, they account for over 64 percent, $22 billion, of B.C.’s total value of exports. We are a trading province in a trading country, and it is time for us to stand up.

Of course, there are details that need to be worked out. But the first and most important thing is to send a signal to British Columbians and to manufacturers and employers in this country and in this province that we intend to continue to focus on an export-led economy. Trade agreements are central to the success of British Columbia. It didn’t happen yesterday. That is the fabric of British Columbia.

[1655]

We have 200 businesses that…. Since 2011, we have supported 160 inbound and outbound trade missions. That’s nearly 200 B.C. businesses. What they do is they market overseas. When you think about the TPP, it’s about opening up those doors even further for the exceptional products and skills and services that we have here in British Columbia. We have to have access to markets if we are going to maintain the tremendous growth we have across our diverse economy.

When I visit with small and medium-sized businesses, market access is a critical concern for them. I’ve heard so much about “We need to get rid of barriers, get rid of high tariffs,” because it holds back job creation. These aren’t big corporations. They’re your friends, the neighbours, the people that want to build their businesses, support the local economy and create jobs. That’s why we on this side of the House support trade, generally speaking, and certainly the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This agreement ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with any other business from one of the 12 member companies. One thing I know: we have confidence that if that footing is equal, we will excel when we compete in those markets.

Let me give you an example. When you open up new markets throughout the Pacific Rim, you create new jobs and you drive economic growth at home. When you look
[ Page 12171 ]
at exports, B.C. goods exports are expected to increase by $320 million annually as a result of the TPP.

Jobs. We hear a lot in this House about job creation. From our perspective, we want to say yes to anything that’s going to make sure that we have a chance to give British Columbians the kinds of jobs they deserve — well-paying, family-supporting jobs. And 2,500 jobs is the conservative estimate of jobs as a result of the agreement. In terms of GDP — $325 million annually as a result of the agreement.

Contrast these benefits to the alternative and its consequences. If the agreement were to go ahead without Canada, our B.C. businesses, the people who live and work in our communities, every member in this House…. Those businesses would be cut off from selling competitively to millions of new customers around the world. Imagine the impact that that could have on B.C. exports, especially since two-thirds of our current exports are already sent to TPP member countries.

We live in a global marketplace. Our job, the responsibility of leaders in British Columbia, is to stand up and recognize that when there is the opportunity for us to increase market share, to look at the possibility of additional jobs, the responsibility we have is to say yes.

Today when I look at…. I thought I would take a look at what the potential regional impacts are. It’s one thing to talk about British Columbia, but what’s even more important is to look at what this would do in terms of regional benefits across the province.

If you take the Cariboo region, for example — and there are members who represent the Cariboo — some of the areas that would benefit specifically would be wood products.

Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand currently have tariffs ranging between 2.6 and 40 percent on B.C. wood exports like spruce, pine and fir lumber, oriented strand board and plywood. These tariffs would be eliminated over time, making B.C. forestry products more affordable for buyers in member markets.

Mining. We look at the benefit, potentially, to B.C. mining companies. Most Trans-Pacific Partnership member countries do not impose tariffs on metals and minerals, but there are existing tariffs on commodities like iron ore and nickel. Those will be eliminated immediately in all member markets.

You can go down the list: canola seed and oil, wheat and barley, and cattle. If you think about cattle…. Tariffs on beef in important markets like Japan, Vietnam and Peru will be significantly reduced or eliminated, which will benefit B.C.’s cattle ranchers.

If you look at the Kootenay region — wood products, mining, services, wine, a variety of things. Tariffs on wine are going to be reduced and eliminated in key markets — once again: Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia.

[1700]

The Mainland-southwest region. We’ve heard much today about agrifoods, fish and seafood, pulp and paper, fruits and vegetables, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, aerospace. One of the previous members spoke to that particular area.

The north coast — fish and seafood, mining, aluminum, wood products. The Thompson-Okanagan. We’re talking about apples. We’re talking about cherries, wine, aerospace. Vancouver Island — fish and seafood, pulp and paper, wood products. All across the province of British Columbia, this trade agreement has the potential to open further market access.

It is our responsibility to build an economic framework so that when commodity prices are low, like they are today, trade agreements help build that buffer for British Columbia. We are a trading economy. We are a trading province within a trading country.

It is truly unfortunate that today, when we had a chance, for the first time in a very long time, to actually talk about an economic matter of substance that talks about jobs for British Columbians, that talks about how we grow and enhance our market share, that talks about how we look for improved circumstances in regions right across British Columbia, we have more debate about an amendment than we have about the content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

When we look at the important information that British Columbians need to understand, certainly we hope that this kind of debate increases people’s awareness about what happens. We want to ensure that as we move forward, we are going to remove as many barriers as we possibly can. Tariff reductions and eliminations, sector by sector, are good for the people of British Columbia.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

This ensures that B.C. businesses can compete on an equal footing with other businesses, and in fact, we know that this is a province that will benefit in particular from bilateral trade between North America and other TPP markets, spurring economic growth and job creation here at home.

This is an opportunity for British Columbia’s businesses. We want to stand up, embrace that opportunity and make sure that we continue to be leaders in job creation, leaders in diversifying our economy, and making sure that we say yes to development, yes to investment and yes to growing jobs in the province of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: It gives me great pleasure to rise to address the motion.

It’s interesting to listen to the speakers opposite. They introduced this motion back in October. At that point, the text of the agreement — that is, the details of the agreement — were not public. Their support was based on…. I’m not sure. The member opposite spoke of ideology. Perhaps that’s what the basis of support was. But certainly, it wasn’t based on any detailed analysis of the
[ Page 12172 ]
text, because it hadn’t been released. The agreement was negotiated in secret.

Not every trade deal is the same. The member speaks as though a trade deal is a trade deal is a trade deal. That is just not the case.

Let’s take, for example, the Canada-Korea trade agreement, which we on this side of the House supported. It’s a different deal from the TPP, and that’s why it’s important to look at the details of a trade agreement. It’s negotiated with a country which is a democratic country with relatively high labour and environmental standards, a democracy where the economic structure of the two countries complements one another, and there are mutual benefits. It was decided, based on analysis, that it was to the benefit of British Columbia and to Canada to support that deal, and we did support it.

The member has this very simplistic notion that simply because something has a “trade deal” label on it, that automatically it’s good for the country.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I just did, if the member was listening — the Canada-Korea trade deal.

I don’t think I’m going to really penetrate the fog that surrounds that particular member. This is the side that supported the deal before they knew what was in it. They didn’t know what was in it. When we….

[1705]

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Oh no. Oh no.

I had a debate with the Minister of International Trade. She spoke of a study about the benefits and not, job losses and job gains in different sectors in the economy.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: She spoke of a paper prepared, analyzing the potential benefits and job losses from this deal. The minister has refused to release it. There are job losses. She wouldn’t answer the question in what sectors they would be. How can that be an open, public debate about an agreement?

Yes, there will be gains in some sectors. There’s no doubt about that. This is a bigger decision than…. It’s easy to talk about gains in some sectors. It’s pleasant to talk about gains in some sectors. One rejoices for those sectors.

But looking at an agreement, one has to look at the whole agreement. What are the overall impacts on the B.C. economy? The study on which the members opposite claim to base their views is not public. How is that a public debate? It’s prepared at the expense of the taxpayers and held back, secret, from the public and not made part of the debate. How can we be confident, given that secret study, that what is being advanced here is to the ultimate long-term benefit of British Columbia?

There are aspects of trade deals. For example, in the European trade deal, the CETA trade deal, one of the main points of contention…. Obviously, Europe is developed and democratic — for the most part; there are some laggards now in eastern Europe in recent elections — high environmental standards, high labour standards. Generally, they’re economies and societies that are somewhat like our own and make trade between the two regions relatively even.

But one of the issues that arose there was the investor-state dispute mechanism. Again, I asked the Minister of International Trade last year about that. She wouldn’t answer. Ultimately, that was a sticking point in the European Parliament that European nations and their parties were not prepared to countenance — the kind of NAFTA-style tribunal, which gives corporations, in their view, inordinate power over the sovereign law-making power of an individual country. That is being somewhat modified, and that agreement may go forward.

Again, that is a different agreement than the Canada-Korea trade agreement. The Canada-Korea agreement didn’t have an investor-state dispute mechanism in it. That made it very different from the European deal.

I know that the minister is trying to make a rhetorical, ideological point and throwing in irrelevant stuff like Leap. But in this deal, there is an investor-state dispute mechanism which Joseph Stiglitz…. He’s a Nobel Prize–winning economist. I don’t know whether that’s a real job for members on the opposite side. What he said is that it’s even more draconian in its restriction of the sovereignty of the members, of the signatories, to the agreement than the CETA.

If you look at the history of NAFTA, NAFTA has a mechanism like that — an investor-state provision that allows private companies to contest government decisions. Canada was required to pay forest company AbitibiBowater $130 million in 2010 after the company won a NAFTA chapter 11 challenge against Newfoundland and Labrador’s decision to expropriate its assets.

These mechanisms exist. They are real, and they are real limitations on sovereignty. None of the members opposite in any of their discussion have considered this, mentioned it or seemed to care about it. They are focused simply on the fact that it’s a trade deal, in pursuit of the message box that’s being pursued on the opposite side.

[1710]

I think these are real considerations that need to be weighed before entering, locking in our country, into an agreement from which it would be very difficult to extricate oneself and would exist for generations.

Now, the examples that are given are notably resource industries, and that’s obviously part of the B.C. economy.
[ Page 12173 ]
But one of the main concerns about the structure of the TPP agreement is its impact upon the use of intellectual property and its role in production in the future. In the 21st century, IP, intellectual property, is going to be the critical ingredient in production. It’s not going to be raw materials. It’s not going to be labour. It’s going to be that intellectual property that will become essential for business success in the future.

What this agreement does, according to many people who’ve looked at it — and they’re far more expert than myself and, I would suggest, members opposite — is that it will exclude Canada. It will put the United States in a very dominant position, particularly its pharmaceutical and its entertainment industries, in a position of global leadership which other nations will be unable to catch.

That has huge implications for the technology industry here in British Columbia — 88,000 jobs. In the future sometime, when the members decide to move off the LNG discussion and talk about a diversified economy…. It’s a growing sector, and that technological component, that IP component in manufacturing, in other areas of economic activity, will become even more and more important in the future.

That’s a huge part of what’s being considered in this deal, and no one on the other side is paying any attention to it, addressing it in any way whatsoever. I think, therefore, it’s important to consider just what this deal might represent.

I understand why, and I don’t…. The federal Minister of International Trade has spoken directly to these concerns. I believe her when she says that the stage that the Canadian Parliament is at and that the party that she is a member of…. They have not completely committed to ratifying this agreement.

What the member from Kamloops said is, “Well, yeah, they’re consulting, but let’s just hurry it up and get to ratification,” as though the consultation process — there was nothing to be learned from it. There was nothing to be gleaned from expert evidence about the impact of this on the economic future and the political sovereignty of the country.

These are important, momentous issues, yet they’re all to be brushed aside for the sake of the short-term electoral processes or purposes of the governing party here. That is not the way to make public policy. That’s not doing our job properly.

To be derided as simply, in these simplistic terms, by requesting a real debate, by requesting real analysis…. I mean, there is even real debate about whether this agreement will cause job loss or job gain in Canada as a whole. There’s the study that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned, from Tufts University. It speaks about job loss, and even those in favour of the agreement speak of very marginal job gains overall.

Again, you would never know that tentativeness or that lack of certainty from listening to the members opposite, because they really aren’t interested in exploring the facts of the deal — and it is a very complicated deal. They’re simply interested in asserting an ideological position that they support something because it’s got the trade deal label on it. That is, really, I think, the low level at which debate in this chamber appears to be conducted.

[1715]

That’s why I think it’s important, as in most parliamentary systems, through the committee structure, that you bring in other people. You bring in people from different sectors. You bring in experts. You bring in people who can advise you, to help you make a better decision. The government doesn’t appear to have any interest in doing that whatsoever. Their mind was made up before they knew what was in the deal. Before the text of the deal was released, their mind was made up.

This is simply an ideological pursuit on their part, and at this stage, I think it’s irresponsible to support the deal without knowing more about what’s in it. Clearly, those on the other side have demonstrated they don’t understand what the implications of this deal are for British Columbia and for Canada — and shame on them.

C. James: I rise to speak to the motion that is in front of us and to express my concerns with the direction that I see the government heading in, particularly with the minister’s comments that she made in her remarks. I want to take a few minutes to do just that.

I want to start with the premise from the minister. It’s amazing to me. We heard it from the Premier, but I guess we hear it from the minister, the same comments from the other side. That is that an amendment that would simply give the opportunity for the public, for business and for labour to be able to engage in a discussion around a major trade agreement…. From the minister’s point of view, from the Premier’s point of view, that’s a ridiculous idea and that’s simply stalling off. Well, I find that shocking.

In speaking to the amendment previously, I talked about the expanse of the TPP, and I want to do that now when I’m speaking to the motion as well. The TPP covers 40 percent of the world economy, and the response from the government is: “Let’s just bring this forward, and let’s just push this through.”

I think it’s very telling, as my colleague has mentioned, that this motion was on the order paper before the document was actually out. That says everything. That says absolutely everything about the lack of attention that this government has paid to the details in a trade agreement. Surely that is a basic to-do for government.

I heard the minister talking about what needs to be done in leadership. Well, the basics in leadership is make sure you’re informed. Make sure you take a look at what’s there, the details, the minutiae, the impact it’s going to have on people here. To be able to just simply bring forward a motion that says: “We’ll approve it. Well, no, we’re
[ Page 12174 ]
not clear; no one’s really clear on the details. Yes, there are lots of outstanding questions. Yes, there are lots of things that haven’t been answered, but who cares? We’ll just move it ahead.” That is not leadership. That is not leadership in any way.

I find it interesting that the minister, and the Premier as well, talks a lot about working with the federal government. Well, I think we should take a moment to look at what the federal government has said about this agreement.

I think the first piece that is interesting is that the minister herself has said that ratification, a final step, is two years away. The minister says there’s urgency here. Two years away, in the federal minister’s own words. There is no urgency for debating this today. The urgency is to make sure we do it right, we take it out for consultation, and we get those questions answered before a decision is made. That’s the urgency.

What did the federal minister say in her open letter? The federal minister said…. I just want to read from this, because it shows such a difference between the direction that’s being taken in Ottawa by the federal government and the direction that’s being taken here in British Columbia.

“As Parliament returns this week, I will work with my colleagues from all parties to have a full and open debate in Parliament, a commitment that we made in the election.

[1720]

“Further, I have written to the Government and Opposition House Leaders, as well as the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to convey my strong belief in the merits of a robust and transparent examination of the TPP.

“In particular, this should include extensive, non-partisan consideration, analysis and testimony from all regions, sectors and backgrounds. Most importantly, this process will be fully public.”

That’s our federal government. In fact, the federal government, on Monday, is going to be in Vancouver. They’re going to be holding a series of public consultations with Canadians. Imagine that. They believe it’s important to have a dialogue and discussion. It makes the meetings a little awkward for the minister when she’s talking to the federal government and she’s just called them out on a ridiculous process of consulting. But that means nothing. You don’t need to consult. I’m sure that’s going to make it very comfortable when those discussions and dialogues occur.

Again, I want to come back to the questions that have been raised. It’s, again, shocking to me that the government seems to think that when there are outstanding questions that are valid concerns from business, from sectors of our economy, from British Columbians, from Canadians…. When valid concerns come forward, the response is: “We don’t want to hear them.” The response is: “Let’s ignore them.” The response is: “We’re just going to move ahead anyway.” That’s the approach that this government has taken. They’ve taken it in a whole number of ways, and here we see it once again, coming forward with the TPP.

What kinds of questions have come forward? There are questions about whether the TPP prevents individual provinces from raising the minimum wage. Now, perhaps that doesn’t matter to the other side. Perhaps the other side doesn’t care about that. Maybe it makes no difference to them, now that we have the lowest minimum wage in the country. Perhaps they aren’t looking at the minimum wage. I would think that raising the minimum wage and the ability for the democratically elected individuals in this Legislature to make that decision would be a question that should be responded to and is a valid question to raise around the TPP.

There are questions about regulations that restrict the ability for government to set climate change policy — very valid issues and concerns that have come forward. Now, again, perhaps that doesn’t matter to the government. Perhaps the members on the other side don’t care about that issue.

We certainly saw that with the LNG bill and the draft agreement that came forward, where the government said that they were going to pay the company if they put specific climate change policies in place that would have an impact on the company. Perhaps the government has already shown their cards, in that respect. I would think that British Columbians and Canadians would like to have a say about that issue.

There are questions around whether polluters will be required to pay if they pollute. Right now it’s expected that if a company pollutes, you will get the money back from the polluter to clean that up. There are questions in this agreement about whether that will be allowed.

There are questions about barriers that are going to be put in place about personal privacy. That’s a big concern. Personal privacy matters to the people of this country. I would expect that you would want to have an opportunity to be able to answer those questions and those concerns.

My colleague raised the issue of intellectual property — copyright, open sourcing: all issues that could have a huge impact on the technology industry here in British Columbia, one of our largest, growing sectors in our province. Surely they deserve the respect of having someone come and speak to them and give them an opportunity to raise their issues around TPP before this gets passed. That’s basic respect.

There are questions around labour rules and health and safety. Again, an opportunity for labour to be able to review the TPP, to look at the specific details and to come forward during a public consultation process and say, “This matters to us,” seems pretty basic to me.

[1725]

It is…. I would say shocking, but sadly, given this government’s track record, it’s not shocking any longer to me that this is the response that the government would have around an agreement like this.

Is trade important for British Columbia? Of course. We’re a small open economy. Trade is critical. But trade
[ Page 12175 ]
at any cost? Trade that is going to negatively impact our economy, negatively impact British Columbians’ lives, negatively impact the ability for democratic decisions to be made? No.

That’s what has to be explored. Those are the issues that need to be talked about. That’s the kind of discussion that we should be having with the public in British Columbia if you cared about what was going on with the public and the economy and business in British Columbia.

I rose to express my concerns because this is an issue, from my perspective, that will have a long-term impact on our province and our country. Surely the government recognizes that the public and businesses and labour and citizens have a right to have a say on something that will impact them for the rest of their lives.

A. Dix: I rise to take my place in this debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership put forward by the government. Members of the House will recall that the government placed this matter on the order paper here last fall. Prior to even seeing the text of the agreement, they put it on the order paper. They said it was an issue of urgency, that they needed to proceed with this motion and the debate on the motion. They decided to do that in October of last year.

The matter is clearly of such urgency to them, such importance to them, such central importance to them, that they waited till today — a few days before public hearings on this question were coming to British Columbia — to have this debate. We saw it, from the seriousness with which members on the government side have put forward and developed their arguments here. We saw, I think, what would have to be considered a short, brief and non-substantive presentation from the Premier.

Let’s just say, to put it cautiously, to put it in the spirit of generosity, which I know is a dominating feature of this Legislature, that the Premier did not use up all of her time. In fact, probably the substance of what she had to say on this important issue to Canada, to British Columbia and, indeed, to the world could have been summarized in a two-minute statement.

In any event, the government’s motion, which is before this House, reads:

“Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership because: the Trans-Pacific Partnership removes trade barriers and provides preferential market access for B.C. goods and services from all sectors including forest products, agrifoods, technology, fish and seafood, minerals and industrial goods, and through the transition support will be available to our supply-managed industries; the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides more access for service providers in professional, environmental, and research and development fields; and, ultimately, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase investment and create new jobs and opportunities for many British Columbians.”

Incredibly and interestingly, the government determined all of that before seeing the text of the agreement. That, I guess, one can only describe as reflexive public policy. It’s certainly not substantive or thinking public policy.

We, in the New Democratic Party, take a different approach to these issues. We actually like to read agreements before we sign them. We actually like to listen to people on an issue of fundamental importance to their lives before we pass judgment on it. It’s why the member for Juan de Fuca, the Leader of the Official Opposition, rose in this House and gave the government an opportunity.

He said, “Why don’t you do in British Columbia what the Liberal government of Canada is doing on the national level?” which is to listen to people, have a parliamentary committee, have public hearings on the central question — not just on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, although that’s a central question — of the future of trade, the future of all our industries in British Columbia.

[1730]

What did the government do. hon. Speaker? Well, as you know, because this is their way, they voted against that. Had they said last fall when they introduced this: “Let’s listen to the people of British Columbia. Let’s bring forward this matter for debate. Let’s have this matter for debate….” It was introduced then by the Minister of International Trade. She was dropped from the title role here, and the Premier came in. Had they said that last fall, we could have come together and had those public hearings.

They weren’t interested in the debate. They weren’t interested in what British Columbians had to say. There was an opportunity to do it, not starting now but starting last fall, but they chose not to do that.

You will recall, hon. Speaker, that other governments in British Columbia have taken a different approach to these issues. When we had a discussion around the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 in this Legislature, all parties took part in a process to consider the agreement. There was not unanimity of ideas around this, but they gave British Columbians the opportunity to have their voice heard on something that, after all, was very significant to British Columbia.

That, I suppose, is the difference in approach between the opposition and the government. We actually like to read the agreements. We actually like to listen to people.

As you will know, hon. Speaker, there have been a number of trade agreements passed by the government of Canada to which the people of British Columbia are either signatories in effect or signatories because the provisions are imposed on us. The member for Kootenay West will know, for example, that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are years of litigation between B.C. Hydro and Celgar with respect to some of these very provisions.

Decisions that are important to the future of everybody in the region and everybody in the province are
[ Page 12176 ]
being litigated in rooms that the people cannot see and in circumstances they barely understand. I suspect if you polled the government caucus, they didn’t even know that that was happening in our province. If you did a poll — if you did a quiz, like we were in, say, an economics 101 class — I think that most people on the government side wouldn’t even know that that was going on. But people in every part of British Columbia want to be part of this discussion.

Now, there have been different trade agreements, and the NDP has supported some and not supported others. I have the great privilege in Vancouver-Kingsway of having a longtime NDP trade critic at the national level, Don Davies, as a seatmate. He is our representative in federal politics; I’m the representative in provincial politics. Don, I think, has in a very thoughtful way enunciated the kinds of principles that we should look at in assessing trade agreements.

You will recall, hon. Speaker, and I know that members of the House will know, the important relationships between Canada and Korea that currently exist — economic, social and political agreements that exist between Canada and Korea. My colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed has been a leader in promoting those relationships since she was elected to the Legislature, hon. Chair, as you will know, both from experience and for her contacts, but also because her belief that those exchanges between Canada and Korea — indeed, my colleague from Surrey-Whalley participated in just such a trip in the past year — are positive.

Why did the member for Vancouver Kingsway at the national level, Don Davies, and why did the national NDP support that trade agreement? Well, I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker. He did so because it met the test that he laid out for that trade agreement. That test was as follows.

Question 1. Does the potential partner respect democratic principles and acceptable standards of human labour and environmental rights? If not, has the partner demonstrated a positive trajectory of improvement in these areas? I think, hon. Speaker, that you would say the response to that question with respect to this agreement is uneven, to say the least.

Is the trading partner of significant and strategic economic importance to Canadian importers and exporters? What are the terms of the trade deal? Do they protect key Canadian public and economic interests? Finally, is the agreement, when analyzed comprehensively, of net benefit to Canada? He put forward those ideas.

[1735]

I think, observing this agreement, that there would be a range of views in British Columbia about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we have seen that range of views in the public debate. We have political parties at the national level interested in that debate, and we have at least one political party at the provincial level interested in that debate — the NDP — but alas, not the government side. They think that this trade agreement, which has massive implications for our country, should be a matter of partisan gotcha.

Listen to the speeches we heard over there. They weren’t about trade. They weren’t about the future of our relationships in the Asia-Pacific. They weren’t about substantive issues of impact on Canadian public policy, such as drug prices and agriculture and the future of Canadian industry and intellectual property. They didn’t respond to Jim Balsillie of Research in Motion, who has put forward very significant concerns about the impact of the intellectual property provisions on people right here in British Columbia who are job creators in our province.

They didn’t respond to any of that. They were talking about the Leap Manifesto, I think, but they didn’t respond to any of that — nothing of substance. That is what they have put forward, after all of this time. We had about an eight-minute speech by the Premier where she talked about none of those issues. None of them.

That is the situation that we’re facing. How does that differ from the views of our national politicians? Well, what they have said is that they require, before making this decision, consultations with significant members. That’s what Ms. Freeland, the federal minister, has said. That’s what the Prime Minister has said. That’s why they’re coming to British Columbia. They’re not coming to British Columbia to have some sort of diktat. They’re coming to British Columbia to listen, and I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

When you hear the concerns…. We are a provincial jurisdiction here in British Columbia. Our major spending demand on our budget is health care. We know the significant impact here in British Columbia, everywhere in Canada and, indeed, around the world to the provisions with respect to intellectual property and, particularly, prescription drugs, of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Minister of Health knows them. There have been reports done by the federal government that acknowledge this, that show that this agreement will drive up drug prices. Remember, it is a fact. It’s beyond dispute. The federal government, even the Stephen Harper federal government, acknowledged it.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health, of course, shakes his head. I look forward to his extensive participation in this debate. I think that what we have seen is a legitimate concern.

I know that the Minister of Health shakes his head about the position taken by groups such as Doctors Without Borders and others on that very precise question — the legal opinions they’ve developed, the briefs they’ve done. They’re not worthy of discussion on this thing? They’re not worthy of response? They’re not worthy of serious consideration? We think they are.
[ Page 12177 ]

We know, because of the reports produced by the federal government about this agreement and the Canada-European agreement, that the impact on the ability to bring in generic drugs in certain areas is significantly and negatively affected. This drives up drug prices. The government may well argue that that’s in the public’s interest, but it’s the taxpayer of British Columbia that will ultimately pay the price for just that initiative.

When you think…. I know that Mr. Balsillie is an entrepreneur, and his views may not be of interest. But I think he’s had some success in that debate. He has talked about the damage that the TPP can cause, in his view, to our ability to compete internationally and the advantage the TPP gives to a country like the United States over Canada.

When you consider the future impact on jobs, which people on every side of this House have talked about…. The future of the tech sector and intellectual labour in the economy is that it’s a growing part of the economy. We’ve seen, after all, over the time of this government, 30,000 fewer people working in forestry. This is an area where British Columbia has gained and hopes to gain more jobs.

[1740]

When you hear from a noted leader such as Mr. Balsillie that there are serious questions with respect to how that allows us to innovate…. Those issues, I think, we should hear about from people before British Columbia takes a position. What would it hurt to listen to people? They, after all, had time since they introduced this motion to listen to people and simply failed to do so. And they continue, I may say, to refuse to listen to people.

Just to put it in context, because I think what Mr. Balsillie said…. I think it’s a very serious comment. He said, for example, and I’m quoting him, that the deal contains “troubling” rules on intellectual property that threaten to make Canada a “permanent underclass” in the economy of selling ideas. A permanent underclass. That’s what he said.

He said: “I’m not a partisan actor” — so, presumably, his ideas are not of particular interest over there — “but I actually think this is the worst thing the Harper government has done for Canada. I think in ten years from now, we’ll call that the signature worst thing…that Canada has ever done. It’s a treaty that structures everything forever, and we can’t get out of it.” He says that it will impose intellectual property standards as set in the United States. That’s why Mr. Balsillie has spoken out so strongly, as have other tech entrepreneurs, about these very questions.

We have issues around manufacturing, issues around the tech sector, issues around the price of prescription drugs — all of these issues facing the people of British Columbia with respect to this agreement.

A government which said yes to this agreement before they read this agreement and now doesn’t want to hear from the people of B.C. about this agreement and thinks that this is just an issue for partisan stunts and we’ve got to rush it in Wednesday before the hearings come to British Columbia…. That’s exactly the approach that British Columbians will, I think, reject, because it doesn’t speak to the very serious concerns they have.

I note, and I’m sure that my good friend from Chilliwack-Hope has read the concerns and the ramifications right in Chilliwack of the TPP — right in Chilliwack, where groups have met in his area and talked about the impact on dairy farming. I know I’m looking forward and waiting to hear what his views are, because according to his constituents, they are personal. They affect the food we eat and the milk we drink.

The public health advocate, former Health Canada adviser Shiv Chopra, appeared at the Yarrow Community Centre on April 14 and said as follows: “Being the heart of B.C.’s farmland and dairyland, we in Chilliwack should know and care where our food comes from and what’s in it. The TPP would make that impossible.” He goes on to criticize the agreement. That’s the people of Chilliwack. They’re having their own meetings, but the member for Chilliwack votes against their right to participate in public hearings of a parliamentary committee here.

In short, what we have are two approaches to trade — the approach to trade as enunciated earlier by members on our side in this debate, which is serious, which says, “Let’s look at the agreement, let’s listen to people and let’s act in the interests of British Columbians”; and the idea of a government which put forward this motion before they read the agreement. They put forward the motion before they saw the agreement. That’s their view.

Fortunately, that kind of process has no intellectual property rights. It won’t be in any way affected by this agreement. But that’s what they did. It had to be approved by the cabinet, that motion. It came forward from a cabinet minister, that motion, and it was put forward before they even read the agreement. That was their position. Now what they’re saying is we should decide before we hear what the people of B.C. have to say about the agreement.

Other countries are having a robust debate. The leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, of course, are highly critical of this agreement — Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders. Other candidates for the presidency of the United States are also critical of the agreement in other political parties in the United States. I believe the Green Party in the United States has expressed criticism of the agreement. I believe candidates for the Republican nomination have expressed concerns about the agreement.

[1745]

They believe they should have a fulsome debate. There will be public hearings in the U.S. Senate. You can guarantee that. There will be public hearings in Canada. You can guarantee that. But here in British Columbia, no, we don’t want to hear what people have to say.

That’s why, when it comes to a vote, this plan that was put in place to have a debate in this Legislature before we had even read the agreement that is coming forward
[ Page 12178 ]
today for some of the lamest, partisan reasons one could possibly imagine…. We reject that approach just as we reject this motion.

Hon. J. Rustad: I find it interesting listening to the debate. It’s an honour to have the opportunity to actually stand and speak to this, because trade is an important component.

To the member opposite that was just talking about how he wants to take it out and hear from people. The member opposite’s federal leader…. They’re all members of this party. Here’s their perspective. “I would never bring this deal to the Canadian Parliament.” That’s the leader of the federal NDP.

They’re talking about wanting to take it to the people. Their own party says they would kill it. They wouldn’t even take to it the people and give it a chance. That is what the opposition stand for, and they’re here in this House talking about wanting to do something different.

What the real issue here is, is that they actually don’t want to say where they are on this thing. They have no interest whatsoever in letting the people of British Columbia understand what the NDP stand for.

They’ve refused to talk about the Leap Manifesto. They say: “Oh, there are lots of things in here we like, but no, it’s not good for British Columbia.” They refuse to talk about the TPP and stand up and take a position on this thing. They want to just hide it away so they don’t have to have people understand their position.

The TPP is about trade. British Columbia is a trading jurisdiction. We are on the Pacific Rim. We have trading partners all around the Pacific Rim and beyond. It is incredibly important for us to have good relations with these trading partners, to have the opportunity for access for our markets, for them to come in and trade, because trade builds opportunity. Trade builds our economy.

Think about what global trade has done. Think about what it has opened up. Trade, arguably, has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else that we have seen in the world.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The opportunity that this creates for British Columbia, whether it be for forestry, seafood, agrifoods, mining, the service sector…. The list goes on and on. This is what this trade deal is about. It’s about growing our economy. It’s about opening up relationships, providing access for our goods. Most importantly, from my perspective, it creates opportunities for First Nations. It has the way to open up those markets, to see investment and provide the kind of investment that First Nations want to be part of — growing their potential and growing their opportunity in the economy.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the opposition stands and rejects this.

I just want to say to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, for his comments…. He stood up and took a position, a principled position, and said he’s opposed to it. I understand that, and I accept it. I don’t agree with his position, but I accept it, because he’s showing leadership in saying he’s opposed to it, not trying to find some way to tuck it away because they’re, quite frankly, embarrassed to really talk about it and where their position is.

When I think about trade, 65 percent of B.C.’s exports go to our trading partners, to the members that will become part of TPP — 65 percent of our exports. They want to put a wall up and say no to that. I don’t get it. In the Leap Manifesto, it says: “Leave these trade agreements. We shouldn’t be doing these types of things.” Why? That’s obviously at the core, and members of the opposition have voted against it. Why would they vote against those sorts of things when they know our trade is so dependent?

The jobs in British Columbia, the investment that is driven in British Columbia is all dependent upon trade. It’s critical that we see B.C. at the table, being part of these trade agreements, taking advantage of this and growing our economy.

[1750]

B.C. is expected to gain 2,500 jobs. The GDP — we’re expected to grow by about $325 million annually. That’s phenomenal growth. For my riding, that means that the lumber companies in my riding have better access for selling their products. That means that the ranching business in my riding has better opportunity for export markets — improve what they can sell and improve prices.

I’m actually really happy that we have this opportunity to be able to debate this in the Legislature, because it does show a huge difference between us, what we’re trying to do in building jobs and building the economy, and the opposition, which is once again just trying to find ways to get to no. I think what they hope for is that everything would stop so that then they could blame us for it. It’s crazy.

One of the things that I think First Nations are very interested in is the opportunity to grow seafood and particular things like shellfish. Having access to markets, being able to bring investment in for the nations on the Island and the nations along the coast that want to participate in that — why wouldn’t you want to say yes to that? Why wouldn’t you want to see that kind of investment? We’re seeing the K’ómoks First Nation and what they’re trying to do in driving the shellfish industry and creating jobs. This is a good thing.

When I think about the forest sector, wood products, having the ability for access — and if we don’t join it, missing that opportunity and having other people bringing their products into that market — is incredible for us as a province. The members opposite talked about some of the challenges the forest industry has gone through. As we continue now to recover through that and we look for the potential for other forests products that could come out of it, we need access to those mar-
[ Page 12179 ]
kets. We can’t just be dependent upon the United States.

We must be able to have access to the markets. It’s why we’ve been so focused on growth in China. It’s why we’ve been focused now on growth in India. Whether it’s Korea or Japan, it’s about creating trade and creating those opportunities, because we need to have trade. I seem to remember back in, I think, the ’80s, when we were talking about the North American free trade. The members of the NDP at that stage were opposed to that too. Think about what that would mean.

One thing I also think about when I talk to ranchers in my riding is their need to access cattle, their need to be able to access the cattle markets. You think about industry, whether it’s the cow-calf industry, which is a significant economic driver in my riding, that industry doesn’t exist if you don’t have markets. All it takes is one hiccup with the Americans, and suddenly you’ve got a challenge, because so much of our market is dependent on selling our meat into the Americas.

But opening up places like Japan and other markets — I know we’re opening those doors now — and being able to have part of that access locked into trade is huge. When the ranchers in my riding want to invest in herds and want to grow herds, they want to know that they have access. This does that for them. It creates the value and creates the opening that they would like to see.

Same thing when I think about mining and the products we produce from our mining industry, or pulp and paper or cherries and blueberries and cranberries. Whatever it may be that we produce in this province, having access is what is important.

I know we’re not here debating directly theLeap Manifesto, but it does make you wonder when you hear the opposition and their comments around free trade, around opening up and creating trade deals, around being open with partners, and you look at that manifesto and what it’s trying to do, I really do wonder how many people on that side voted for it. I know some had the courage to stand up and say that they did support it.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: That’s not what I heard when I heard members opposite tweet about being there and supporting it, so that’s interesting. So I think….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m hearing the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. He’s had an opportunity to debate, and I’m sure he’ll get a chance to get in here again as part of it.

The reality is really simple when you look at it. The manifesto calls for shutting down oil and gas industries, and they’ve already said they’re opposed to that, so obviously they support that component.

[1755]

It talks about shutting down and exiting trade agreements. They’re obviously opposed to that here, and they’re afraid to stand up and talk about it, although they’ll get a chance to vote, I’m sure, in the near future. It talks about many other components, all of which, quite frankly, the opposition have already agreed to, in one fashion or another.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s interesting that the member for Saanich South seems to want to be able to provide a perspective. I welcome her to stand up and say what her perspective is on the Leap Manifesto. I think it would be a good thing to add to this debate.

I think what I find important about this is…. Think about what this means for the forest industry. This is a quote from the Council of Forest Industries. It says: “We’re particularly encouraged by Japan’s willingness to gradually eliminate tariffs on forest products imports. We have long and productive relationships in the Japanese market, and we believe TPP will only strengthen those relationships.” That’s the forest industry talking about what it means.

With regard to competition, Paul Ellery has said, “Will we be able to handle it? Yes. We’ve been competing with the manufacturing countries such as China daily. We’re competitive to the point where we’re winning contracts, so we’re really not too concerned with the competition” that will be created.

If you want to be able to grow the economy and produce products, you need a market. If you want to be able to take natural gas out of the ground in British Columbia and to be able to sell that, you have to have a market for it. You have to be able to access Asian markets. You have to be able to access North American markets. If you want to produce a forest product, you must have a market for it.

You cannot put up a wall and say no to trade. You must be able to go out and be able to make deals. You must be able to have access. It’s through those types of trades that you get those initial dollars into your economy that support so much else that you want to do, that support government services, that grow what you can do as a government, that grow your population, that will be able to support schools and hospitals and other infrastructure that we need. You don’t get there by saying no. You get there by entering into agreements, by opening up those markets.

It’s been a pleasure to add a few comments in here around this. And for the members opposite that have been chiming in, I very much look forward, particularly, to their perspectives that they want to offer on the Leap Manifesto and what they’d like to do here. But I’ll say this. Trade is critical for British Columbia. We need to be able to grow our markets. We need to find ways to be able to reach out with partners, welcome investment, find ways
[ Page 12180 ]
to be able to access their markets and, really, have that growth in British Columbia.

Without it — without being able to sell your products, whether it be through prices or other things — what you end up with is a stagnant economy, high taxes. You end up not being able to provide the services that you’d like to be able to provide, and you end up with an economy, quite frankly, that people say: “I would leave and go to another jurisdiction for opportunity.”

Growth is the best thing we can do for our economy. It’s why we’re so focused on the economy, on creating jobs, on liquefied natural gas and why we think trade is such a key component of being able to build a prosperous British Columbia, for all of British Columbia. My riding in particular, a rural riding, is very dependent upon exports, very dependent upon trade. First Nations that want to create business opportunities are very dependent upon the opportunity and the potential of trade.

I’m proud to stand here and say that on this side of the House, we support open trade, and we think that the TPP has the potential to be very beneficial for all of British Columbia.

[1800]

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to join the debate on this motion, the TPP motion advanced by the Premier. The motion, as we know, is:

“Be it resolved that this House, acknowledging the importance of diversifying trade to create jobs for British Columbians, supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership because: the Trans-Pacific Partnership removes trade barriers and provides preferential market access for B.C. goods and services from all sectors including forest products, agrifoods, technology, fish and seafood, minerals and industrial goods, and through the transition support will be available to our supply-managed industries; the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides more access for service providers in professional, environmental, and research and development fields; and, ultimately, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase investment and create new jobs and opportunities for many British Columbians.”

That’s the motion that the Premier put forward earlier today. Now, sounds pretty good. Sounds pretty good. The problem, of course, is we know that this motion has been around for a while. The motion has been around since before the 6,000 pages of the agreement were available to anybody to actually read.

We have a government that decided to leap in and embrace this particular agreement before they had even had a chance to read it. They just jumped right into this.

Why is it that a bad idea? It’s a trade deal. Trade deals are good, right? All trade deals are good. But of course, what we know is that all trade deals aren’t necessarily good. There probably are very few things in public policy where you can say the devil is in the details more than in trade deals — particularly, multilateral agreements, in this case, with a dozen countries that all have vested and different interests and all come to the table to look to advance that.

Now we know…. I assume that this government has decided that they need to ram this particular motion through because it has some value, I assume, to do that. But they choose to do this when we know that the federal government, which is taking a somewhat more thoughtful approach to this…. I think there’s support in the federal government for this deal, but a somewhat more thoughtful approach….

They are consulting. In fact, they are saying — the minister responsible is saying — it’s probably a couple of years till they get to where they will vote on this in the House of Commons. It’s not like this thing is right around the corner. It’s a couple of years away.

Also, as any thoughtful person would know, we’re not one of the big dogs in this debate. The Americans…. This particular deal has a very uncertain future in the United States. If presidential candidates are to be believed, they all have expressed concern or outright opposition. The Republican-controlled Congress has expressed opposition and has said unless the deal is changed, they won’t find support there.

As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, there is no doubt that there will be an extensive and protracted series of hearings in the Congress in the United States on this. They will invite stakeholders. They will invite experts. They will invite interests. They will all have their say as to what they believe is good, bad and indifferent about the TPP. They will all have their say.

Yet here in British Columbia, you have a government that just is leaping to this, again — to a motion that they put forward before anybody actually saw the document they put forward. I know that this a government….

We hear the Premier. This is part of the buzz, part of the regular kind of Premier’s spin — this getting to yes. Getting to yes is a good thing, but at some point, there has to be some modicum of due diligence. At some point, you have to actually read what you’re getting to yes at. At some point, you have to think about it. It isn’t about: “Where’s the camera?” and “Are you ready for the shot?”

You have to think about it, but the Premier does not think about these things in a meaningful way. Certainly, this says to me that the Premier does not think about this. It is an embarrassment that the Premier would put a motion forward — 6,000 pages, didn’t read it. The Premier puts forward a motion. She didn’t read the document.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Oh, the Minister of Labour is spouting off. I’m sure the Minister of Labour maybe can get up and speak again. Maybe she can get up and speak again later.

[1805]

You have a government where due diligence doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. This is a province where trade is important.
[ Page 12181 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, order in the House.

S. Simpson: Thank you, Speaker.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Yes. Well, your side knows about disrespect. You’ve been disrespecting the people of British Columbia for a long time.

The importance of trade is something that we do know about. We know that this is a small trading jurisdiction in British Columbia. We know that trade is integral to our success in this province. It’s integral to the economy. It’s integral to our ability to build health care and education. It’s integral to the future for the people of British Columbia.

It is a small jurisdiction, and what we should know in a small jurisdiction, more than anywhere else — more than, like, the United States — is that we need to be very thoughtful about where we do the deals when we are, almost inevitably, going to be the small partner in every deal that we do. That’s just a reality. It’s fine. It’s a reality. But we have an agreement here where none of that thought has gone into it from the government side.

Periodically, the government talks about this report or that report. Well, if the government truly believes it has reports that have value, and if it has reports that talk to the TPP and the impacts, it would be great if the minister or the Premier or whoever would table those reports and give us all an opportunity to look at them and see what they say. That’s not what we’ve got here.

The Aboriginal Relations Minister spoke earlier and went off on a couple of tangents. But the most interesting thing, I found, is that he talked about First Nations. I’m not sure, but maybe the government could release the report where they consulted with First Nations about the TPP. Maybe they could release the reports where they had in-depth discussion with the First Nations about that.

Why don’t we do that? Let’s see who they talked to. The First Nations — if I know anything, it’s that they will expect their voice to be heard. They are not a stakeholder; they are government. They are a level of government, and I’m perfectly certain that in British Columbia, they would not be pleased if the B.C. government was endorsing things without conversation, meaningful discussion, with them.

I’d be really interested to know the depth of the discussion with First Nations over the TPP and how much discussion went on. I’m guessing none or not very much, but I’d be happy to see the reports that tell us something different. You know, there are so many pieces of this that are problematic.

What did we do earlier today? What we said is that if the government is serious about this motion, if the government really wants to have a discussion about this motion and about the TPP and wants to affect a position about the TPP, then let’s have a conversation.

Let’s do what any intelligent, thinking, thoughtful government would do. Let’s have a conversation with the people of British Columbia, and let’s make it a conversation that is highly credible. What could be more credible than to hand this to a standing committee of the Legislature? Earlier today we moved a motion, a “referral to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for robust and transparent discussion and public consultation on the long-term job creation and employment impacts for British Columbia of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Now, of course, we know that that motion was not successful. We know that the government voted that down, that the government has absolutely no interest in having a conversation with British Columbians, with having a legislative committee that speaks to people, that travels this province, that hears from people on the record, that takes that information in.

[1810]

We’d be happy to have had that happen and then bring this back with a committee report from that committee, with all of that supporting documentation, and let’s see what British Columbians have to say.

We know. We’ve seen. We’ve heard from ministers and others on the government side who quote people who are supportive of the agreement, and there absolutely are people who are supportive. What have we responded with? Eminent people who say that this agreement is a real problem.

What did we hear from the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz? “I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations.”

He talked about the TPP’s investment protection provisions, which he says could interfere with the ability of a government to regulate business or to move towards a low-carbon economy. He went on to say that it’s the “worst part of the agreement” because it allows large multinationals to sue the Canadian government.

“It used to be the basic principle was polluter-pay,” Stiglitz said. “If you damage the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars.” Who in their right mind would jump into an agreement that puts you in that circumstance?

Now, there’s a debate to be had over whether Mr. Stiglitz is correct or not, but it’s a discussion. It’s a debate to be had to determine whether, in fact, he is correct or not.

He’s not alone. The former CEO of BlackBerry: “I’m not a partisan actor, but I actually think this is the worst thing that the Harper government has done for Canada. I think in ten years from now, we’ll call that the signature worst
[ Page 12182 ]
thing in policy that Canada has ever done…. It’s a treaty that structures everything forever, and we can’t get out of it.” That’s what a leading business leader and innovator in the technology sector has said about this agreement.

In our traditional industries in British Columbia, the head of Ford Canada. What does she say? “We support free trade, but it has to be fair trade. We’ve got to get these trade agreements right, and right now, as the TPP stands, there will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing.” That’s what the head of Ford Canada thinks about that.

Professor Geist, well known and respected, has picked the TPP apart in a series of 50 blog posts. As he said: “There is certainly need for more study…but the analysis to date suggests very limited economic gains for Canada in the TPP. That may be unsurprising, given that Canada already has trade deals with nearly half of the TPP nations, but it should leave the government wondering whether all the costs and regulatory upheaval are worth the effort.”

The point of those points is that these are thoughtful, eminent, non-partisan people who think about these issues. They’re not supporters of ours. I don’t know who they support, but they are saying there are real issues here. The government can produce a list of people who say: “This is a good deal for me, and I like it.” That’s fine. But doesn’t anybody on the government side think, when you have this level of debate and this level of disagreement about the TPP, that it deserves some further investigation, that it deserves some further due diligence, that it deserves some further conversation — particularly when the clock is not at quarter to 12 or five to 12?

We have a couple of years. We have a federal government that is engaged in a process right now of talking to Canadians. That’s a good thing, and I’m glad the federal government is doing that.

[1815]

The reality is that we should be having that conversation with British Columbians based on what the British Columbia interest is. We should be talking to British Columbians about that, both to better understand that interest from the perspective of people who are engaged in this issue and being able to measure that. That opportunity does not exist with this particular resolution.

Now, I think that there are serious problems with this agreement, and I think that there is very little or no evidence out there that the agreement is in the Canadian interest. We have seen trade agreements that make a lot of sense for Canada, trade agreements that make a lot of sense for British Columbia. We have signed them, and we have benefited from them. There will be more, and we will benefit from those too. There is no doubt about that.

The idea that the government believes that you can sign this blindly, with no analysis, no discussion — no analysis at all….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: The Minister of Health is saying: “There’s analysis.” Well, then, maybe the minister would like to table that analysis so we can all read it.

If the government has documentation that is substantive and has been prepared independently, then let the government put that on the table, and let us all look at it.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Well, I’d start with a scrap of paper of any kind that wasn’t written before the deal was put out. I’d start, maybe, with somebody who has actually read the agreement. That would be a good start.

Every agreement and every deal is different. We know that.

The aboriginal affairs minister, when he was talking about deals and how much trouble we could get in, talked about China at one point. I’m sure it was a small misspeak because China is not part of the TPP. That’s okay. That happens in this place all the time on both sides. It’s fine. That’s just what happens sometimes. But that’s why it would be good to have a discussion with people who don’t misspeak as often as some of us here do.

As this moves forward, this motion will be what it is. At some point, presumably, the government will pass the motion. I’m not sure what it will mean when the government passes it because it is a national agreement. I’m not sure exactly what it means when it does get passed at some point.

Probably the most telling thing about this debate is it shines a light on how this government looks at public policy. It shines a light on the notion that it really is about the quick fix, the quick win, maybe, and how you get to that fix. It doesn’t really matter if it makes a heck of a lot of sense long term.

It doesn’t really matter if it’s going be too complicated to get done. There’ll be lots of time to figure it out. If we get through May 2017, it might not matter anyway. The government is saying: “We’ve just got to kind of deal with the politics to get us to there.” Fair enough. That’s what they’re doing. It’s not a good way to run the province, but it is the way that this government rolls now.

I would point out, and members of this government who’ve been around for a while will know, that this has changed quite a bit from the days of Mr. Campbell. This has changed quite a bit. As much as I didn’t agree with him, there was never much question that Gordon Campbell thought through anything that he brought to this floor. Whether you liked it or you didn’t like it, it had gone through a process. There had been some rigour. He had figured it out. When he brought an issue to the table, he was ready to do it.

[1820]

I’m sure the ministers over there who sat in Mr. Campbell’s cabinet know that. They know better than anybody in this place how the change has occurred. I’m certain of
[ Page 12183 ]
that. They know the difference between how things run now and how they ran then.

What you have is the need to talk to people. It is too bad that the government has decided that talking to people about the TPP is way less important than a bit of a political game, which is what we’re playing today. That’s a political game with what the Premier put forward today in this motion. And that’s okay. We’ve seen lots of that in the last few weeks, and we’ll see even more of it over the next year. There’s no doubt about that. That’s just the way life is going to roll, and that’s fine. We’ll deal with that.

The problem comes when the political game potentially overwhelms public policy in a way that affects peoples’ lives in real and meaningful ways. That’s when it becomes troublesome not for the 85 of us sitting in this place — we’ll all be fine — but for everybody else. When you start making decisions based on what you think the best short-term politics are, then you get into trouble.

If this government didn’t believe that, they would have embraced the idea of sending this motion to a committee. That would have been exciting. It would have been exciting to have had that happen. I think that would have been a really interesting debate. I think it would have produced a very interesting report from the standing committee. I think it would have been very interesting to see who came forward and to have watched the exchange between thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. I think that would have been really interesting. But we’re not ever going know that, because the government chose to reject that amendment.

As we move forward, as we look at how the TPP is going to unfold, the reality is that whatever happens here and whenever it happens, the federal government is engaged in this issue. The federal government is consulting with people. The federal government has taken a thoughtful and meaningful approach, unlike this fluff that we have from the Premier. It’s a thoughtful and meaningful approach from the federal government. They will engage Canadians and British Columbians in a discussion that will add value to the final decision, one way or the other.

Hopefully, the results of that consultation will lead to a vigorous parliamentary debate in the House of Commons and a vote there, whatever that vote is. I look forward to being able to watch that from afar and to be able to see that engagement from afar, where this decision actually gets made in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, over what we do or don’t do around the TPP. That’s where the decision is to be made. That’s where the decision rests.

Now, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we should have a meaningful conversation in British Columbia. The opportunity was in front of the government today to have had that, to have motivated that conversation, and they chose not to. Instead, we have this fluff motion.

I look forward to much more debate on this from other members, who I’m sure are entirely engaged and embraced in this, and we’ll see how it all goes.

Hon. T. Stone: I’m thrilled to stand and take my place in the debate on the main motion. Obviously — like most members, I think — I have been following along today with some degree of interest in the debate on both sides. I think what’s apparent to me is the contrast that the debate on this motion really has afforded us again today and really has afforded the people of British Columbia.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

This motion is not about precluding public debate. It’s not about passing by engagement with British Columbians. It’s not about a quick drive-by on an important trade deal like this.

[1825]

It’s about the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia standing and informing the public as to where they stand on an important matter such as an international trade deal like this Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That’s what this motion is about. This motion is about: do you stand with British Columbia industry and British Columbia sectors and British Columbia workers who are confident in their abilities to compete on the world stage?

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Why do I say that? Because they are competing. Every single day of every month, of every year, British Columbians are competing. British Columbia businesses and British Columbia workers are winning contracts and are selling their products and their services around the world today.

As someone who, in my previous life as a technology CEO, has had experience launching services into other countries. I can speak with some level of experience at what it takes in order to do that. And I can say that with experience, knowing and having worked with a great number of very talented British Columbians over the years who have been successful at selling their wares around the world.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the largest trade deals that the world has ever seen. It is a trade deal that the government of British Columbia has carefully assessed. We’ve looked at it sector by sector and have determined that this is a good deal for British Columbia.

While I listened with some degree of interest to what the member for Vancouver-Hastings had to say moments ago, I was left puzzled as to why it matters, with all these individuals he was quoting — all these folks from back east in Ontario in the automotive sectors and whatnot, industries that don’t have a footprint in British Columbia. I don’t really think too much about what the benefits or the drawbacks are of a trade deal like this to businesses in Ontario. Maybe the member for Vancouver-Hastings does, and that’s why he took so much time to talk about
[ Page 12184 ]
the Ford Motor Co. and the impacts of the trade deal, potentially, on the automotive sector.

We’re here to defend and promote the interests of British Columbians. We’re here to promote and defend British Columbia workers. We’re here to promote and defend British Columbia business and encourage the continued success of British Columbia entrepreneurs and business leaders, not businesses in Ontario or businesses back east. That’s the lens we’ve put on it, and we happen to know something about job creation on this side of the House.

We are number one in job creation in the country. Since this same period last year, we’ve created 72,100 net new jobs, and 143,000 net new jobs since the launch of our jobs plan. From March to March, we had the largest percentage job growth record in the country. We are leaving other provinces in the dust.

Part of this success, part of the recipe for success on the jobs front has been the fact that we balance our budgets in this province. The members opposite vote against that. Part of the success is that we keep taxes competitive in a national context. The members opposite vote against those measures. Part of it is that we engage with the world. We grow markets for B.C. products.

It’s not that long ago from a trade diversity perspective, ten years ago, that over 80 percent of British Columbia’s exports went to the United States — 80 percent. The next largest would go to different parts of Asia and a number of countries in other parts of the world.

[1830]

Today 55 percent of our trade is with the United States — still our largest trading partner — but 40 percent is with Asia, and a full 20 percent is with China. That’s because of the vision and the good planning of this government years ago in putting the effort in that was required to grow markets in, for example, forest products in China. I can tell you that when you drive around the interior of British Columbia, there are mills after mills after mills that are still there today, that are still working today, workers that are still putting food on the table for their families at home because of the trade diversification that we were successful at achieving. That’s what engagement with the rest of the world looks like.

If we want to continue to grow opportunities for British Columbians, opportunities to export products around the world, you have to show up. You have to focus on building the relationship. That’s why our Premier and several ministers have spent so much time going to China, going to Japan, going to other countries in Asia — Malaysia and so forth — to build those relationships.

You also have to show up when entire blocks of countries, like what we have seen through the TPP in the Pacific Rim, come together and say: “We’re going to work together on a trading partnership. We’re going to work together to reduce trade barriers.” That’s going to be of benefit to all of the member nations, all of the nations that show up and participate in those discussions.

This trade deal is vital to the B.C. jobs plan. It’s a vital component to our continued focus on doing everything we possibly can to create good-paying, family-supporting jobs for sectors and families all across British Columbia. It will open up new markets throughout the Pacific Rim. It’s going to help us grow our exports.

Many of the folks who have spoken before me have talked about the different sectors and the benefits in each sector, like seafood and agrifoods and forestry and technology and mining and so forth. I’ll touch on a few that are directly impactful to folks in my neck of the woods, up in the Kamloops area.

Let’s talk about agrifoods. The gains from tariff elimination and improved market access for agrifoods companies across British Columbia are significant. They’re significant in terms of the concessions that Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam have made in this agreement. These are huge markets where Canadian products currently face severe restrictions. There will be improved access for British Columbia agrifoods as a result of this agreement.

Mining. The growth of emerging markets in TPP member countries could create strong, long-term demand for the minerals and metals produced by a wide variety of resource companies in British Columbia. We’re pretty darn good at mining in this province. There’s a tremendous opportunity to continue to export those resources and to continue to export the expertise related to mining that will be largely facilitated through this trade agreement.

With respect to cattle, tariffs on beef imports in important markets like Japan, Vietnam and Peru will be significantly reduced or eliminated. This is very important to the cattle producers across British Columbia, many of whom are located in my constituency. This is a very good benefit. We’ve heard others talk about what the cattle industry has had to say in their support for this trade deal.

The wine, sparkling wine and ice wine sector in this province. Yes, we do have a growing wine industry in Kamloops, and they are producing good products. If they feel that they can compete on the world stage, and they want to give that a shot, then I think we should stand behind them.

[1835]

I think we should be doing our part to promote improved access to markets overseas for products, if that’s what businesses in British Columbia want. This agreement provides for significant reductions in tariffs relating to wine exports.

Wood products. I talked already about the significant diversification that we have seen in our forest industry — the exports of forest products in British Columbia over the last 15 years. As I said, it was a very deliberate, focused effort that was required to engage with China and engage with Japan and other nations to build those markets. This trade deal enhances that access. It paves the
[ Page 12185 ]
way for improved access. That’s good for forest workers in community after community around this province.

The pulp and paper industry. Yes, we have a pulp mill in Kamloops, amongst a number of others around the province. The agreement will see tariffs as high as 10 percent to 25 percent on B.C. pulp and paper products eliminated over time in key markets like Malaysia and Vietnam. This is going to provide British Columbia pulp producers with a significant price and competitive advantage. That’s good for the hundreds of workers who work at Domtar in Kamloops and who work at the pulp operations in other communities around British Columbia.

I could go on and on through sector after sector, citing the benefits that this trade agreement provides British Columbians. But, at the end of the day, you either stand with the people of British Columbia — the workers, the people who want good-paying jobs — or you don’t. The members opposite can stand here as part of this debate and can talk about how the government is just putting forward fluff. They’re avoiding engagement. They’re avoiding a discussion.

This is exactly the place where members who are elected by the people of British Columbia are supposed to come and express their views on the important issues that really matter to British Columbians. All we’ve heard from the members opposite, in a clever attempt to not put themselves on the record as to where they stand on trade…. Go on the record and tell British Columbians where they stand on this particular trade agreement. They have cleverly tried to avoid that by throwing this little, flashy argument out, saying that this is really all about a lack of consultation.

This is an international trade agreement. This is a federal trade deal. This is not a trade agreement that is entered into by subnational governments. The members opposite know that very well. But they choose not to go on the record and talk about whether they support trade generally or not and whether they support this agreement or not.

Our view is that Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch all of the other nations of the Pacific Rim build bridges with one another, while British Columbia…. The preference of the opposition, I should say, would be to see British Columbia build a big wall around itself. That’s not how we’re going to continue to create opportunity in this province, how we’re going to continue to grow exports and grow jobs.

As I said earlier, when I spoke to the amendment to the motion that was moved earlier, all of the pieces are coming together. I think British Columbians have been suspicious of where the members opposite, where the NDP, actually stands on the resource industry. They don’t trust the B.C. NDP when it comes to support for good-paying jobs around the province. Why? Because they have said no to every major project that we have advanced in this province for the last 15 years.

They could stand up any day now, and they could say, which their friends in the B.C. building trades have encouraged them to say: “You know what? We’re going stand up with B.C. workers. We’re going to support Site C.”

[1840]

They won’t do that. They don’t support Site C. They’ve said no.

They could stand up on any day, and they could say: “We’re going to support Pacific NorthWest LNG,” which would be the largest private sector investment in our province’s history, our country’s history. They have opted to stand up and say no to those thousands of jobs. They’ve said no to those thousands of British Columbians that would be gainfully employed through that opportunity.

They could stand up any day now and say: “You know what? We support the George Massey Tunnel replacement project and the jobs that that’s going to create.” But they’ve said no to that project as well.

As I said earlier, the most interesting aspect of all of this, which really connects all the dots, I think, for British Columbians, was the Leap Manifesto that we saw at the NDP convention on the weekend. It was right there in broad daylight, a manifesto. It’s a few pages long, very quick and easy to read but very much to the point. Keep resources in the ground. Don’t build any more infrastructure. Don’t enter into trade deals. In fact, pull out of existing trade deals.

Isolate yourself from the rest of the world, essentially. Let’s not trade. Let’s not move agrifood products around the world anymore. Essentially, the NDP are suggesting that British Columbians should all either get chickens or grow potatoes and trade with one another, and that’s about it.

It’s just appalling that the members opposite will not take the opportunity to recognize the tremendous job opportunities that exist with these major projects and begin to try to get to yes, try to get to a place of figuring out how to work with industry and with environmentalists and with First Nations to arrive at a place of moving forward with some of these projects, whether they be LNG or Site C or any number of mining projects around the world.

Instead, they go in the complete opposite direction, and they endorse a manifesto to keep resources in the ground. Don’t do any fracking. Keep that natural gas in the ground. Of course, as we all know, you can’t export natural gas if you don’t first extract it. Don’t mine that copper anymore. Don’t ship those products out of the province anymore.

Most galling to me is that the champagne socialists who wrote this document in eastern Ontario, in eastern Canada and largely in Toronto, flew out to Edmonton, the heartland of the resource economy in western Canada. They presented the manifesto. They twisted enough New Democrat arms, the manifesto was endorsed, and then all of these folks get back on their big planes and fly back home. There’s a little bit of irony in that.
[ Page 12186 ]

We saw a swift reaction from the Premier of Alberta in response to the manifesto. What did we hear from the leader of the NDP here in B.C? We heard: “You know what? There’s actually a lot of stuff in the manifesto that we can work with. There are some things that we need to tweak a little bit, but there’s a bunch of things that we can work with. Yes, I’m an NDP supporter. I’m a federal NDP member, so I’m not going to run away. I’m not running away from the Leap Manifesto.” He said that this morning.

What does that say to the thousands of British Columbians, the hard-working men and women in our mines, in our forest sector, in our natural gas industry and all of the other sectors that are resource-focused? Well, what it says is it confirms what, I think, most British Columbians already know. That’s that the NDP don’t support these resource jobs. They just don’t.

[1845]

Maybe, in some way, the Leap Manifesto coming forward as it has, has actually somewhat clarified things for folks. It’s confirmed in people’s minds where the B.C. NDP actually stand, and that’s not standing up for B.C. workers who want to build Site C. That’s not standing up for B.C. workers who want to build any number of the LNG projects that proponents want to build in this province. That’s not standing with the many British Columbians who want to build the George Massey replacement bridge. At least they’re consistent, but it’s very, very disappointing.

The final thing I wanted to touch on is the…. When you hear the members opposite talk about trade — their concerns about trade and what it means, impacts of trade — it’s like: “Trade is bad. Trade is so bad.” We know the opposite to be true. We’ve been trading with nations all around the world for many, many years. It’s a large part of why we have been able to leverage so much wealth in this province for our citizens. It’s because we’re engaged with the rest of the world.

Trade agreements have actually lifted millions and millions of people around the world out of poverty. Hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty when, in 1978, they made the decision to begin the process of opening up their economy.

There are any number of countries…. Think about India, Vietnam and Peru and the transformative effect that trade has had on their economies, the opportunities that have been presented to their citizens. They have liberalized their economies. They’ve begun to open up their markets and engage with the rest of the world.

Freer trade has seen consumers around the world afford better food and even be able to afford consumer products that previously, not that recently, would have been considered to be luxuries — like cell phones, computers and automobiles.

This motion here today was about having the courage to stand up and let the people of British Columbia know whether you support engaging with the rest of the world or not, whether you support trade generally and specifically through the TPP or not.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, it is absolutely clear to me that the contrast could not be more stark between the B.C. NDP and our government. The party opposite says no. But over here in government, we are about engagement. We are about saying yes. We are about creating thousands of good-paying, family-supporting jobs for British Columbians, for the current generation and for many generations to come.

M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to rise, to take my place in debate and to follow the minister. I listened with interest to some of his comments and to the members opposite and many of their comments. I’m struck by just the sheer number — there’s no other word — of some outright falsehoods that have been spoken about things in Alberta, about issues of trade, on the….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister says: “On which side of the House would that be?”

Well, let’s deal with one of them right now. We have listened to minister after minister after minister stand up and talk about China and how important TPP is because it’s going to help open markets up in China. Guess what. China isn’t part of the TPP.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I think I touched a nerve. I’ve listened to the minister from Kamloops talk about the need for the TPP….

[1850]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member.

We’re only going to continue when people are quiet.

Please continue.

M. Farnworth: We’ve listened to the minister talk about the TPP and its importance in terms of the mining industry. That’s one of the questions….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Do you know what? I listened to the Premier talk about China, I’ve listened to the minister talk about China, and I have to remind the minister — guess what — initiatives to encourage trade did not start with this government. Initiatives to encourage trade with China started a long time ago. They started under Social Credit. They started under Mike Harcourt.
[ Page 12187 ]
Mike Harcourt did more to expand trade with China than anybody in this government has ever done. When Mike Harcourt was Premier, this province traded more with China than any other province in the entire country.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: More. Yes, Premier, it’s a fact.

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

M. Farnworth: Trade with China didn’t start with the Premier. She likes to think it did.

I listened to the Minister of Agriculture. He said we’ve got to support the TPP because — guess what — there’s another world war coming. Do you remember that? Those were his exact words. He tried to clarify them a little later on, saying: “I hope to God it doesn’t happen, but there’s another world war coming.” Those were his exact words. You can sit there, but check the Blues tomorrow, because that’s exactly where he went.

Now….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

M. Farnworth: In our remarks this afternoon, what we have said, quite reasonably, was that we believe that there needs to be consultation with the public of British Columbia. There needs to be consultation with….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh, oh, oh. Guess what. We’ve got a Premier — she’s wearing Liberal red — trying to say: “Yes, Justin. Guess what. I’m really one of you.” But when the federal government says, “We’re going to hold hearings. We’re going to go out and talk to people right across the country. We’re going to do public consultation,” the first of which starts on Monday in Vancouver…. That’s what the federal government’s doing.

The approach that the Premier wants to take and the language used by the ministers — you either stand with us or you stand against — is straight out of Stephen Harper’s playbook. You can sure tell the influence of the Tory losers who parachuted into this government’s offices on the speech-making of some of the people opposite.

But I want to come back to some comments that the minister from Kamloops, the Minister of Transportation, made. He said: “You know, it’s about mining. The TPP supports mining.” Well, one of the questions that has been asked about there is: what will the impact of the TPP on mining do? What will it have to do on provincial regulation? I’m interested in that, too. I’d like to know what it would mean for the Ajax proposal in Kamloops.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: The member says that he supports the mine proposal in Ajax. The Minister of Health, I think, has a somewhat different view on the mine proposal in Ajax. It’s really interesting. All of sudden, they’re all about getting to yes. But when you talk about the mine in Ajax, all of a sudden, it’s like: “Well, I’m waiting for some additional evidence. I’m waiting for some additional information.” They’re a little bit selective in their issues.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member says: “Do I support mining?” Let me tell you. I’ve actually worked in a mine. I’ve been 3½ thousand feet underground. I actually know what it’s like to be on a drilling crew. I know what it’s like to be on an exploration crew.

I will tell you: mining has helped build this province and will continue to build this province well into the future. I’ll tell you something else….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1855]

M. Farnworth: You know what? I must admit I am quite surprised. I see the Premier wanting to intervene into the debate. It’s a shame she didn’t take more than two minutes to introduce her remarks when this debate started. She was so confident in her position that all she could do is waltz in here, give a two-minute statement, and then that was it. Sat down — and that was the end her remarks.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member.

M. Farnworth: But now, all of a sudden, the Premier wants to engage in debate. Well, all I can say….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: The Premier clearly wants to engage in debates.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Madam Premier.

M. Farnworth: As you know, hon. Speaker, I like to encourage debate, and I want to participate in further
[ Page 12188 ]
debate. I know the Premier clearly wants to engage in debate. But you know what? I do notice the time on the hour, so I will reserve my place to pick up tomorrow and address further comments.

With that, I move adjournment of the debate on Motion 11.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists Investigation Report 16-01, lobbyist: Hal Danchilla; Investigation Report 16-02, lobbyist: Courtney Mosentine.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

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

J. Darcy: As the minister well knows, New Westminster Secondary School is the only high school in my community. It has nearly 2,000 students in a city of 67,000. As the minister also knows — and I’m very pleased that he took me up on the invitation to tour the high school in December — this high school desperately needs replacing.

The walls are full of asbestos. There is lead paint on many walls. The physical infrastructure is literally crumbling. The electrical wiring is protruding. It is not seismically safe. And teachers warn students every day not to leave food out because of mice and rats.

The school district 40 trustees have submitted a comprehensive report to this minister that addresses all of the questions that have been identified by the Minister of Education. The minister has said that this school is his number one priority when it comes to capital projects. What the students and the parents in my community want to know, and I ask the minister on their behalf: when will this project go to Treasury Board for approval, and when can we expect shovels in the ground to replace this 65-year-old school in New Westminster?

[1500]

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, let me just acknowledge and thank the member for New Westminster for inviting me out there. We had a great time out there touring the school. I appreciate, even though we had to grab the umbrellas at the end there, that it made for a very accurate assumption of what the issues and challenges are at that school.

The member opposite and I completely agree, I believe, on this topic that the replacement of the school needs to take place. Within the ministry — again, as I’ve said publicly and as the member knows — this is the number one project that I’m trying to advance forward within government.

I want to acknowledge, though, with that comment, the hard work that the school trustees — the board chair and the trustees — in New Westminster have put into this. This is, I think, as the member would know, a very unique and a very complicated situation with this school, whether it’s with the theatre, with the historical aspect of the heritage sites attached to the property.

Again, another unique situation is in the sense that, as the member mentioned, it’s the only high school in New Westminster. It is the largest school; it’s going to be largest in the province. We’re talking about 2,500 students and the investment in order to replace that.

The other challenge with that is also that there’s no other site. There’s no other property in order to build this school. So the complexities of trying to build a school on the same site where there’s already an existing school, where there’s no other place to house these students…. There are a lot of issues that had to take place, as the member mentioned.

I know that there are parents in the community who have expressed frustration at the timelines it has been taking to get to this point. What I can mention with that is…. I know I appreciate the advocacy. The member has been doing that for her constituents and working well with our ministry to try to get this project to fruition. It is our main project going forward. We’re going to go through the processes, as the member probably is aware of, within government to try to make this project become a reality as soon as possible.
[ Page 12189 ]

K. Conroy: I’m not asking for an answer from the minister. I want to put it on the record. I understand the minister will be up in my area next week visiting school districts 20 and 8. I know everyone in the district is looking forward to it. There are a number of districts up there. I know they’re looking forward to him coming to visit.

I wanted to just put on the record that I’m hoping the minister is going to have an opportunity to get up to Slocan Valley to visit the Winlaw Elementary and W.E. Graham schools at Slocan. Those two schools are slated for closure. It’s going to be a really difficult situation for the valley people if either one of the schools is closed. They are very unique in the Slocan Valley, and they’re unique communities.

I know the people in the region are struggling with these decisions that have been made. I hope that the minister has an opportunity to go up and see and speak to the people of the communities to understand what these potential closures could actually mean to the families and the children of that valley.

Also, I understand he will be visiting in school district 20. Stanley Humphries is a high school in that area and was built in the ’50s. My husband graduated from that school. I graduated from that school. There are still classrooms that are exactly the same, which my granddaughters are now attending, that have had nothing done to them since my husband and I were there. There is a desperate need for some work done in Stanley Humphries.

[1505]

I’m putting in a pitch for that as well as Glenmerry Elementary. I’m hoping that the minister will have the time to go and see these facilities and talk with the school district personnel.

Just one last issue that has arisen in school district 20. It’s become an issue with parents. In rural B.C., as the minister is well aware of, being from rural B.C., we don’t have great transit. The school district is actually looking, as a way of cost saving, to charge parents for busing.

This is a huge issue in rural B.C. There are sometimes no other options for parents to get their kids to school. It could be quite costly for low-income parents, and all parents have expressed real concern about it.

I know that the minister is coming up. I know that he’ll be having these discussions with the school trustees of those two school districts, and I look forward to hearing the results and wish him well on his tour.

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the things that I committed to after I became the Minister of Education was to tour around the province and try to get to as many, if not all, of the school districts as possible while I’m in this role, because there are unique challenges, unique circumstances. Every school district is different. Every part of the province is different. I think it’s important, when we’re making decisions, to really understand that appropriately.

Specifically to next week, what I can let the member know is that we have been in communication with the different school districts. We’re trying, as I get up into that area, to utilize my time, obviously, as best as possible to see as much as I can, so what we have done is we’ve reached out to the school districts and asked them specifically.

Obviously, I want to meet with the school boards and with teachers and parents in the area while I’m there. We want to do that within schools. I’ve asked them to choose the schools that they feel are the ones they would like to showcase for different reasons.

They have some great programs and some great operations that are taking place in those areas as well. They would like to highlight those. I’ve left those decisions up to the school board, that we’d work within my calendar to make sure I can see as much as possible.

Also, within that, I have heard back from the school districts, who have been submitting submissions of certain topics that they want to discuss. Most of what the member just alluded to will be canvassed with the school districts.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about seismic upgrading of our schools, which the Premier has described as amongst the highest priorities of her government, beginning as far back as 2003, when she released a list of schools that were to be seismically upgraded. Twelve years later, more than half a dozen of those schools had not even been upgraded.

In 2013, on the eve of the last election, again, there was an ambitious promise and a reiteration, a doubling down on the commitment, to upgrade all schools by 2020. Shortly after the election, if you live in Vancouver, that timeline — if you can call it that — was extended to 2030, and in the rest of B.C., it was 2025.

We talked a little bit earlier about how the seismic upgrade capital funding has not been deployed in any way that would give any confidence that even the new targets, if I can call them that, of 2025 and 2030 will be met. In fact, looking at the current pace of seismic upgrades, we’re probably on a 35-year timeline, so there will have to be a quickening of the pace by different districts.

I guess my questions are really around prioritization of projects. There are a lot of districts that have been waiting a lot of time for approvals for projects that have been assessed by engineers — that, in some cases, have quite refined budget costs, yet still there are no shovels in the ground. The longer the delays, the more the likelihood that new assessments will have to be done before you can even get closer and closer to tendering for these kinds of projects.

I think we talked earlier in these estimates about the obvious risks to the kids and staff in the building, but there has been a clear political commitment by government that has been disappointed time and time again
[ Page 12190 ]
when it comes to what the Premier has said to British Columbia parents and kids and those involved in our school system.

I guess the question I have to ask the minister at the outset is: is there a timeline that will be given to British Columbians that’s not done in a photo op, that’s done in a real document, in consultation with the school districts, and that looks at the inventory?

[1510]

I know organizations like APEGBC have been engaged. They’ve tended to make, in the last couple of years, the list of seismic school upgrades longer, not shorter.

I know there was a reassessment in Richmond, for example, that found up to 20 schools there based on wooden foundations — so very urgent, high-risk buildings that could collapse. Yet the Richmond school district doesn’t have confidence — the people involved in that school district don’t have confidence — that the ministry has given them a realistic timeline that they can use to engage the public there, to answer questions that parents have about how to enrol their kids in a safe school.

The question, again, is this: is there a concrete, realistic timeline that’s not a political document, that’s not a photo op, that’s actually based on the latest engineering assessments of the projects that need to be done in British Columbia? How many of them would have to be accomplished in any given year? When might there be a surge in seismic upgrading procurement and construction? And if there is such a plan, is it public? If it’s not, will it be made public?

[1515]

Hon. M. Bernier: A couple of things canvassed there that I want to really kind of touch on.

First of all, when we look at seismic upgrades, this is never about a photo op. This is about the safety of the students. This is about the safety of everybody involved within the school system. It’s about making sure that we seismically upgrade every school properly. It’s making sure that we work with all of our partners and stakeholders as we’re doing identification.

When you look at the fact that we’ve spent or committed $2.2 billion on seismic since 2001…. I might want to remind the member opposite that back when the NDP was in government, they actually cancelled the seismic mitigation program because they said it was unattainable and was going to cost too much money.

When you look at the facts, in 2004, we actually, as a government, put a plan together because we recognized that this needed to be done. We recognized, for the safety of everyone involved, that we needed to look at seismically upgrading schools. The reason why I say it’s not a political issue…. This is about just doing the right thing, and that’s why we get the professional people involved.

The member referenced APEGBC. In fact, we’ve contracted through APEGBC. I work with them very closely, with the association. In 2014, in fact, they did a review. They came forward and looked at the pace and what we were doing, the money that we were investing in the province moving forward. At that point, APEG was very complimentary, in fact.

The province and the ministry have actually won awards on the work that’s being done to make sure that we have a seismic mitigation program for our schools. They commended us in that letter for our investment and the fact that we’re advancing all the technical tools associated and making sure that it’s a peer-reviewed process as well.

We didn’t stop there. In 2016, earlier this year…. We want to make sure, when we look at our timelines…. The member referenced: do we have timelines in place? Well, we actually asked APEGBC to look at that, to look at our projections, to look at all of the schools — which we know, working with the school districts and working with APEGBC and through all of the studies that have been done — a list of all the schools that need to be seismically upgraded, on top of the vast amount of ones that have already been completed through the money we’ve spent. With all the school districts that are already 100 percent completed, it allows us to focus on the areas that are not.

APEGBC, earlier this year, after reviewing our timelines and what we were doing, said: “If seismic mitigation funding continues to be provided to maintain the districts outside Vancouver at the same level of funding as in the past 11 years, our proposed 2025 seismic mitigation plan completion date will be unchanged.” Their thoughts are, with that, after the review, that we should be able to make those timelines.

The reason why we’re able to do that, when we talk about the funding being unchanged, is the commitment that we have as a government, within our capital, of making sure that seismic is our number one priority, that safety is a number one priority for us.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

That’s why, when you look at our capital over the next three years…. This year —$454.3 million; next year, $559.9 million; and the year after, $452.2 million. All total, in the capital over the next three years, it’s going to be approximately $1.65 billion being spent on seismic and new schools within our capital to help the people of British Columbia, to help all these schools.

I think what that shows is contrary to what the member is saying — that this is about a photo op. What it shows is actually the commitment of government to ensure that we move forward for the safety of our students.

R. Fleming: I appreciate some of the minister’s response, but I don’t think it brings a lot of confidence to parents that have literally waited for their kid to…. In some cases, before the kid was old enough to attend
[ Page 12191 ]
a school and throughout the entire grade span of that school — in a seismically unsafe building. There were commitments made, in name, on a provincial list to do a seismic upgrade project that hasn’t happened.

[1520]

There are dozens and dozens of examples of schools like that around British Columbia. Many of them are in Vancouver. Many of them are in other parts of the province. They’ve waited an awfully long time for this government. Before government puts out another list…. These do happen at photo-op announcements — I’m sorry. The Premier has done a number of these.

I think it’s a good idea for government to get it right, to be more specific and to commit itself to a timeline that’s not political, that’s about the deployment of capital, that’s about an approved plan, working with school districts. We are nowhere near that. I don’t want to ask about that. The minister has given his answer just now.

I would ask this question. It’s about a policy change, I believe, that has occurred — I don’t know the origin in terms of the year — in recent years about approval around a new school. I believe the policy was something like where a new school replacing a seismic high-risk school is at or about 125 or 130 percent of the seismic project cost — in other words, yes, a new school would be more expensive, but it would bring a number of distinct advantages to it — the province and the school district can make an arrangement.

There would be sign-off by the province for the more expensive replacement building. It would gain advantages because it would avoid the kinds of costs that a lot of seismically upgraded schools need repairs immediately on, after they’ve completed their SMP project. I think the minister is probably aware of the situation where you get major building systems or internal repairs, or you have a building with other code deficiencies that are not seismic in nature.

Now that flexibility is taken out of the system. That’s my understanding. There have been some complaints about that, especially in school districts where it’s really, really important to avoid other costs that are associated with the project although not directly paid for by the province, around what’s called swing space. While the SMP project is going on, finding another school, another site for schools…. The advantage of a new school is that you build it on the sports field, then you deconstruct the old building, and you have the new sports field there — or something like that. We saw that in Oak Bay with the new high school there.

My understanding is the policy has changed, and that means that some old buildings will be given significant seismic investments, potentially. Yet they will still need major mechanical system repairs, expensive roof replacements and all kinds of addressing on deferred maintenance after the seismic mitigation project is done. It just doesn’t seem to make good sense.

It seems to me that there ought to be an opportunity and a limit where it’s not dollar for dollar, new school versus seismic project. They should look at future anticipated capital expenses on the building and then be allowed to make a business case that the better investment is to get a longer life span to be able to avoid maintenance that is coming due on an aging building and get approval for a new school.

I’m wondering if the minister can tell me if this is indeed a policy shift or if there are parameters around where a new school can be suggested by a school district and approved by the province that may in fact cost more up front but have significant savings to the taxpayer in just a few years’ time and over the long term.

[1525]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the Chair’s spot as well.

[1530]

When we’re talking about the policy that we look at when we’re making decisions on schools for seismic upgrades…. Whether it’s a seismic upgrade or a replacement, as per the member’s question, the practice that we have within the ministry, within our capital branch, but also with the negotiations or relationships that we have with the school districts as well…. They bring forward their lists, as well, of where they would like to see us invest as their top priorities in the next steps. When we do that, we look at the different options.

What we do is make sure that we look at the least cost option, but we look at the least cost option over the life cycle. What I mean by that is: if you have a school that’s needing to be seismically upgraded, and in today’s dollars it’s $10 million to seismically upgrade it, but to replace it would be $30 million, the decision could be…. When you look at the fact of the extension of the life that you would get for that replacement, which might add another 30 or 40 years to the life cycle of that school, the decision, in the least cost option, could be to seismically upgrade it. You’ll still extend the life. You’ll still make the school safe. That’s the ultimate objective in that area.

We also look, when we’re looking at that life-cycle cost…. We have examples around the province where we work with the school districts. We might have a school that could be 50 years old. I’m just using theoretical examples here. You have a school that’s 50 years old. It can cost $10 million to upgrade it, but you might only get an extra ten years of life out of that, whereas you could spend $25 million or $30 million, build a brand-new school and get another 50 to 60 years. So when you start looking at the end date of 50 years down the road, what is the lowest cost option in today’s dollars? I use that as an example of….

Sometimes, when we’re investing taxpayers’ dollars…. We’re making sure schools are safe. There are many times
[ Page 12192 ]
where building a new school actually can be the best cost option in the long term. It’s going to benefit the taxpayer, it’s going to benefit the school, and it’s going to give a great learning environment for the students.

The other thing to really highlight is that when you look at the life cycle of a school, especially when you build new schools, you could have reduced operating costs. There are a whole bunch of things that get built in when we’re making the decisions on the new or seismic upgrades.

It’s quite complex in the sense that there’s a lot of work that goes on before a decision is made. A school can come by sometimes and ask for a seismic upgrade. We might actually suggest a new school or vice versa. That’s stuff that takes place as we go through the process with each project, with each school district.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could switch topics to talk about the curriculum review that’s going on in the ministry. This is billed as a year of voluntary exploration with the new curriculum in grades K to 9. The rollout for grades 10 to 12 will begin next year, if I’m not mistaken.

One of the questions that’s arisen in terms of ministry policy — and I don’t think there’s been a definitive answer — is whether, going forward, grade 10 will be considered a legitimate and ongoing leaving year for some students. I’m wondering if there has been a decision made around that in terms of curriculum for the graduation years and the requirements in B.C.

[1535]

Hon. M. Bernier: I just wanted to introduce Jen McCrea from our learning division, the ADM, who just joined us behind here, who works very closely with all of our partners when we talk about the new curriculum. As the member knows, we rolled out the new curriculum this year over a three-year transition, something that has received, for the most part, overwhelming accolades from all of our different sectors right across the province. It’s something I want to commend staff for — and all the teachers and everybody who worked on putting that curriculum together. It’s something we’re seeing a lot of success with already as we travel around the province.

The member was asking around a policy, whether we’ve changed that policy. No, the policy has not been changed when you look at the graduation years. It’s grades 10 through 12. The policy has not changed. There’s no anticipation that it will be changed.

We’re not looking at changing it, one of the reasons being that those grade 10 to 12 years, the courses, the marks…. Those final three years are really what sets a student up for a career, for post-secondary, for what they want to do later on when they leave the K-to-12 system. When you look at all of the different options — the classes that are needed, the evaluations that are required — the marks for those are really what sets the stage now to make sure that the students are ready.

In most cases, when you look at the fact that about 80 percent of the jobs in the province…. Going forward with our economy we have here, about 80 percent of the jobs require some form of post-secondary education. So when you look at those latter years of education, those courses and the options in those classes are quite important.

R. Fleming: Well, that took a long time and didn’t answer the question, but I’m going to move on.

I believe that the minister is correct that the curriculum review has been an energized and engaged process. Many teachers have been involved with it. I know there’s something like 150 or so teachers that are involved with this process.

The 10 to 12 grades are still outstanding, and I believe the timeline is the 2017-18 school year for that to be debuted. There is some draft curriculum that I’m aware of, and there was one article that was published in the Globe and Mail that I just want to reference. It’s one of the few negative commentaries on some aspects of the curriculum review right now, and I just wanted to give the minister a chance to respond to it, to see if it has, in fact, been addressed.

A prominent physicist at Simon Fraser University, Steve Dodge, has been very critical of the new physics curriculum. There is a concern by some that there might be, in moving from a content-based curriculum to a concept-based curriculum, some elements that are essential for science teaching, in his case, that are missed.

He called the draft curriculum “slapdash.” He said: “The curriculum materials that have been circulated for review are unworthy of public review. They’re so bad.” I was surprised to read this, I must say.

[1540]

He says there are other scientists on the review committee that had the same feeling. He did mention that there is a concern here that the curriculum review go very well in the senior grades around sciences, because where there has been some slippage in our OECD rankings amongst Canadian students, it has been around science test results.

I do know that the B.C. Science Teachers Association, which is a component of the Teachers Federation, stressed in response to the criticism that these are very early iterations of the curriculum. They have been improved upon, perhaps even since the writing of this article in December.

I’m just wondering, in terms of a ministry response to some of those external review criticisms from people in academia and perhaps elsewhere…. I don’t know if industry were part of the peer review committee, curriculum review committee, external review committee. Could the minister maybe outline if some of those concerns have been addressed at this stage of the curriculum drafting proposal for grades 10 to 12?

Hon. M. Bernier: I think one of the things that’s important to stress here is we’re talking about a very early
[ Page 12193 ]
framework that came out that was first looked at. The comments were made from some of the people that were referenced.

To the specific questions around how we deal with that…. That information comes in. We have an entire teacher team made up of science teachers from around the province that are actually sitting down, working with the ministry, who are actually putting the curriculum together. They take feedback that comes in from other professionals and from other sectors when we put out that early draft, that early framework.

[1545]

We’re going to have the full draft. It should be ready later on this summer. But I think, again, with that, for the member, it will be no different than the K to 9. So we went through the same process in the K to 9. Then this year was the first year, as a transition year, of the new curriculum.

It’s a living document in so many ways. It allowed this first year in the K to 9…. As teachers were rolling out the new curriculum, as teachers were implementing it, working with it, it allowed them opportunities to give feedback and commentary on how it was working. Should we modify it? Are there areas where we can make improvements on it? That’s the whole point of the process that we were trying to do with this new curriculum.

It was put together by teachers for teachers. You know, we want to remember that. A lot of work was put into it. The teachers and everybody involved in the curriculum team…. Of course, their core objective is that we want to make sure we get this right, so they look at all of the different feedback that comes in.

When you look at the K to 9, the first year is that transition. We’ve taken all that feedback. There have been some discussions on areas where changes can be made based on the feedback. The ’16-17 school year, starting this September, is when that new K to 9 will be implemented, and — using the full draft that’s going to come out this year — that’s when the draft year is going to start for the 10 to 12.

It’ll be a similar process. It’ll be phased in over a year and allow a year for teachers to start implementing all or part of that in almost a trial year — if you want to say — to be able to gain that feedback again, back from the teachers, to make sure that when we fully implement it going into the ’17-18 year, and our new curriculum from K to 12 is fully implemented, that it meets all the goals, that it meets all the objectives and it meets the direction that, actually, the teachers themselves have worked towards, knowing that it’s going to help make the best outcomes for the students.

R. Fleming: I want to ask about standardized tests, the foundation skills assessment that we have in British Columbia. There are school districts and individual schools within those districts where participation rates range from zero percent to, probably, 95 percent at the top end. And there are an awful lot of schools now that seem to be, sort of, in the middle of that range. In other words, large percentages of children in the school are not participating in a standardized test that was designed for across-the-board, universal participation.

It seems to me…. We’ve just recently had some results that have been interpreted in a way that the Fraser Institute interprets them. It seems that as the data becomes less reliable because the amount of schools selecting themselves out or selecting themselves into the data pool becomes even more variable, the Fraser Institute becomes more strident and emphatic that it means something that, of course, it doesn’t, in terms of whether they’re talking about good schools that support children well or not.

Leaving them aside — because government has no control over what they’re going to do with that data, I suppose, although they could, I think, certainly caution people that the validity of their interpretation of the reports is problematic.

On the future of the foundation skills assessment, there has been some discussion again in the media that government has made a commitment to changing the provincial assessment model and that this could happen very quickly for those grade 4-to-7 students that are currently required to, although many do not, participate in the FSA. And that, also, there is a review of examination policies for students in the senior grades.

I’m just wondering if the minister can outline what kind of departure is envisioned for the FSA test as it currently exists and whether it’s going to become some kind of randomized participatory model and/or is the test going to be reconfigured, is it going to be done differently, and what, exactly, is happening at the senior-grade levels in terms of provincial examination policy.

[1550]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: The committee will recess until after this vote.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 4:07 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. M. Bernier: When we were just talking about the standardized tests, really, what we’re talking about are early indicators. We’re talking about making sure that we have opportunities for better outcomes for students. In order to do that, we have to look at how students are progressing.

When you look at the standardized tests, when you look at the FSAs, one of the big things that we have put forward is a committee. We’ve got all of our stakehold-
[ Page 12194 ]
ers, right from independent schools to public. You look at BCTF, at BCSTA — all of our key stakeholders. We’re working together to make sure, as we look at assessments, how those should progress and how we should be doing them, to make sure we’re getting the optimum information out of those tests, to make sure that we’re helping our students.

With that, that committee is doing a lot of work right now. I’m anticipating, within the next couple of weeks, that they’ll be sharing that information, reporting it back to me, for a decision on how we’re going to look forward.

Again, the importance of the FSAs, which I want to make sure I stress, is that the FSAs, when you look at grade 4 and grade 7, are not optional. We expect all parents to work with their students, and all students to take those tests. That’s in legislation. The reason why we do that is to make sure that we have a good indicator. This is the best time, really, to look at the indicators — in grade 4, specifically — for completion rates. It’s the best indicator to look at how a student is progressing in their education, and it would allow for that early intervention.

As a parent, you want to make sure that you have that assessment to make sure that you can see how your child is doing in comparison to the level that they should be at. Are they doing better? Are they falling behind, possibly? It allows the teachers to look at where they can focus some of their attention in the classroom to make sure and bring students up to the level they need to be.

Again, those early indicators are so important. All the studies have shown that if you can make sure that the child is on the right track for their education at an early age, it will prove out nothing but better success at the end of their education cycle.

The other question in that, I think, was around the 10 to 12, the assessments. Provincial exams around 10 to 12 are still lining up with the expectations and the requirements from post-secondary institutions of what they’re looking at in order to move students forward when they look at acceptance into the post-secondary stream.

[1610]

R. Fleming: I want to just go back to the curriculum update. To train in-service teachers on the new curriculum and get them familiar with it, government negotiated two additional professional development days, pro-D days, which were school days that would become non-instructional days, to accomplish the training.

I’m just wondering if there are any schools or, perhaps, districts — but I suppose, schools — where the minimum number of hours of instruction, which is specified under the School Act, is not being met in order to meet the agreement that has been signed around professional development, as prescribed by the government.

Hon. M. Bernier: Just a quick answer to the member: not to our knowledge, actually. This is something that all school districts, as I said, as I’ve been travelling around, have been excited about — the implementation of the new curriculum — and really appreciated the extra couple of days that we put forward to ensure that they had the training requirements to move forward with that.

R. Fleming: On the FSA tests, there’s a growing number, obviously, of French immersion students in B.C., and the reading comprehension tests are conducted, under the FSA, in English. Have there been studies of impacts around exam results? A grade 4 student that has begun in French immersion may, understandably, have less reading ability in English, and in comprehension.

I’m not aware that there is a comparison showing that typically lower results are an issue there. I’m just wondering if that’s something the ministry has studied.

[1615]

Hon. M. Bernier: The information is collected, but there has been no impact, really, noted through the assessments at the grade 4 level for our students who take French immersion. We have, actually, had no — that I’m aware of — issues or complaints brought forward in this regard either.

R. Fleming: I want to switch topics and ask about MyEducation B.C., which has not had a smooth implementation year, to put it mildly, beginning in September 2015.

There are a number of delays and sort of ad hoc workarounds that are happening in a lot of school districts. We get a lot of letters from folks that are involved with the system, who have torn their hair out, who have given up plenty of their Saturdays to go in and do their work because the system is clogged with users. The system has not functioned well, according to a lot of direct user reports, in a variety of districts.

I guess my first question is this. Fujitsu’s promise to have a system that was operational, to have a help desk that would respond immediately — not in a month’s time, but immediately — and be able to fix problems was clearly not met, and the evidence is overwhelming in that regard. I hope the minister will agree. My question to him is: why should Fujitsu get full dollar for contract specifications they didn’t deliver on? My understanding is that school districts have given the $10 licensing fee for every child in their district.

They fulfilled their end of the bargain to pay for this system, but the system wasn’t there, and districts incurred a lot of extra costs. They had to hire their own IT staff. They had to incur overtime costs for some of their staff — the support and admin staff, the teachers themselves.

They paid the money. Fujitsu issued an apology. They’ve acknowledged fully that there was an absolutely disastrous start to the implementation, that they couldn’t handle the volume of users, and clearly, they did not deliver on the specifications that they said they would.
[ Page 12195 ]

Has the ministry assessed penalties for missing key dates and deliverables in the contract? If the ministry has recovered money, given how cash-strapped school districts are around British Columbia….

They paid the full freight for this system that didn’t work. They incurred extra costs. Shouldn’t they be given the amount of penalties if, in fact, there were some? Shouldn’t that money be spread to the actual user groups themselves?

[1620]

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll start off by introducing, behind me, Jill Kot and Eleanor Liddy. Jill is ADM, and Eleanor is our executive director, who actually worked very hard on this specific issue.

When we look at September…. The member is right that when we were transferring onto a MyEd B.C. system, working with Fujitsu on the contract, in that first month of September, they did not meet contractual obligations. He read out, probably reading off the letter that Fujitsu sent out….

One of the things that we started, obviously, right away with Jill and Eleanor is making sure that we were working with all of the school districts. We have a team of people from around the entire province, where we are constantly looking at…. At that time, they were looking at how we improve the system, how we make sure it meets the contractual obligations, in constant communication with Fujitsu.

Fujitsu actually came forward and acknowledged that they weren’t meeting the obligations, acknowledged that they needed to put in more hardware in order to meet the demand, with everybody coming on, that they thought the system would handle, but it didn’t.

Good to report, though — once all those changes were made at the end of September with Fujitsu, the work that they did with the staff here — that it’s meeting all of the contractual obligations now. In fact, we’re getting great reports from right around the province of the functionality and the opportunities that MyEd B.C. brings to the schools and for the different functions that were asked for by the school districts themselves. That is the good-news part of this.

Now, when we talk about not meeting the contractual obligations in the one month of September, we do have that contract. There are penalties identified within that contract for that month where they didn’t meet it. We applied the maximum penalty to Fujitsu for that month under that contract.

That, now, is coming back to me, where I’m reviewing options, working with the school districts. We’ve communicated with them, where I’m going to be deciding the best opportunities to utilize that to help the school districts.

R. Fleming: There are some issues related, not just about the system crashing — and those were not confined to the month of September, believe me. We were getting reports well into October and November about that. There were problems with the MyEd B.C. system around the issuance of report cards in a number of districts that, frankly, posed problems from a privacy perspective.

But one of the problems is really just around the design of the function. There’s a concern that this off-the-shelf product has never been tested on the kind of volume that it’s anticipated to have here in British Columbia.

Some of it is design, though. Teachers complain that some functions take 15 clicks to complete — at times, a lot of inputting for different students that they have to evaluate. It’s very time-consuming. Teachers cannot email directly out of the portal to parents yet. So there’s a lot of improvisation going on.

I know in my kids’ own school, we use Fresh Grade. We do not use the other system — I think it’s called Gradebook — that was supposed to accompany MyEd B.C. So that’s not operational yet.

The project hasn’t been scaled up in terms of the million users it contemplates, or excess of that. Some districts, I understand, haven’t added high schools yet. I know that we added the two largest school districts only as of January 1, I believe, or maybe it was late fall. Maybe the minister could answer: are 100 percent of students on the system now?

[1625]

Has the ministry had feedback around how labour-intensive some of the design features of the system are, and is Fujitsu correcting those? Those might not be in the contract specification. They may not be subject to penalties. It may just be a poor design flaw that requires money to fix, and it’s out of bounds in terms of contract monitoring.

When is the approximate time that parents and, also, students, with their own personal education number, will be able to use the system themselves?

[1630]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the seat.

We’re talking about MyEd B.C. again. We’re talking about, first of all, who is on this. So 100 percent of the school districts that were on the BCeSIS system are on MyEd B.C., which is 56 of the 60. The other four have chosen not to, and there are different reasons for that.

One of the things, though, that I think is really important to stress, because there were a lot of inaccuracies in the member’s comments in his monologue prior to his question, when we were looking at some of the different things with MyEd B.C…. First of all, MyEd B.C. was designed by teachers. The options, the functionality —
[ Page 12196 ]
everything within that — and the formatting of this was asked for by a huge working group that worked on this for hundreds of hours, trying to get to a point where we had exactly what was going to work in all the school districts that wanted to use this.

I want to thank them for the work they did, because this working group are the ones that actually put forward the suggestions to make sure, as the programs were being built within this system, that it met their requirements.

Also, I want to correct the member on another comment. The system has never crashed. In September, it was running slower than expectations. It did not meet the contractual obligations. We canvassed that in the last section of questions, and I explained that. But when the member was saying that in October, November, whatever other months he referenced about the system crashing…. The system never crashed. It was never publicly mentioned that it crashed. We never had a complaint of it crashing. That was never dealt with.

We did, however, have a couple of scheduled changes, scheduled outages that we worked with the school districts on as we brought on new components of the system and brought on other school districts. They were scheduled, but those were in full communication with the school districts. So I just want to correct the member that there was not ever an issue with Fujitsu where it actually crashed to that level.

The other thing I just want to mention is that the system is 100 percent operational. All of the functions that the districts, the teachers and the working group asked for are there.

The member referenced some different programs or options for parents or for grades, etc. Those decisions are made now at the school district level on when they want to actually implement different components and different parts of the system. As far as the system itself goes, it is there for the school districts to completely use. Every school district has its different nuances of what they’re going to turn on when and use at their discretion. I just want to make sure the member is aware of that.

J. Wickens: I’m happy to be back to ask some questions in Education estimates today.

I just want to make a couple of remarks about the minister’s comments yesterday near the end of my line of questioning in regards to the level of detail I was asking for and the timelines around what I was asking for.

I guess what I would say is that in order for us to understand service levels, we have to look at what has been spent previous, in previous budgets. Our minister himself talks quite a bit about $1 billion going into the system since 2001, so if we want to look at how service levels have kept up since 2001, we have to see what money has been put into different budgets over the years. That’s really my reasoning for my line of questioning.

[1635]

As a mom, I have a budget in my house. If I have an increase in my salary, that’s a great thing. But if the costs in my household go far and above the increase in my salary, I have to start taking things away from my family and my kids. So when we’re looking at the Education budget, I think it’s really important for us to understand whether costs have increased above and beyond what the money is that’s gone in — if that makes sense.

I’m going to go back to my last question that I asked the minister about — supplemental funding amounts for students in categories (a) to (h) in 2001 compared to what those supplemental amounts are today.

Hon. M. Bernier: Just to go on with the comments that I made yesterday to the member. You know, I completely appreciate where she’s coming from. As I mentioned, we’re talking about this year’s budget. The specific detail that the member is talking about, of course, is information we can definitely get for the member. I made the offer to her yesterday that we are more than willing, my staff is more than willing, to sit down with her and give her a full, detailed briefing. We can gather all of that information for her and do that.

If she wants to submit it in writing, we can give an answer in writing, or we can do a face-to-face briefing. That is completely her choice. She just has to let the ministry know, and we’ll arrange that for her.

J. Wickens: I appreciate that, and I will take you up on that offer, for sure. What I would believe to be the case is that the supplemental funding has not increased very much over the last 16 years, but the costs to support those students have increased drastically. The costs of employing educational assistants and specialist teachers have increased far more than the increase of that supplemental funding. The minister can let me know exactly what that funding is at a later time.

On a personal note, this is something that is incredibly personal to me. It’s something that I live every day. I see the pressures in our system, and I see how that affects our kids. So I’m here to ask questions, to shake things up and really have the minister and the ministry look at how we’re educating these kids, because we can do better. I know we can, and I think it’s really important.

My next question for the minister. If he can let me know what the estimated wait times for psych-ed assessments are right now in the province.

[1640]

Hon. M. Bernier: Just before I get to the specific question, I just wanted to start off with where the member was going to when we talked about the specific funding for the supplemental funding — a little bit of inaccuracy. Last year, for instance…. It did go up last year. As I said, we will offer the member briefings further to show how that trend has changed over the years, but I just want to
[ Page 12197 ]
make sure we’re on the record that we did actually go up on all three categories last year. It’s inaccurate to say, if that’s her feeling, that she feels that it hasn’t gone up.

The other thing I just want to remind the member. With all due respect, we offered a pre-brief for the critic for that, which they did take. It would have been somewhat helpful for my staff if some of the numbers being canvassed presently had been brought up at the pre-brief so that we could have made sure that we would have been able to give accurate information at that time. Those questions weren’t brought up.

Specifically, when we look at the psych-eds….

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. M. Bernier: Well, the member can sit there and start trying to make it personal and insult me and my staff. It’s unfortunate that he’s doing that.

When we look at the psych-ed assessments….

Interjection.

The Chair: Order. Through the Chair. The minister’s got the floor.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair.

I’ll try to get specifically to the thing. With psych-ed assessments, those are done at a school district level. Those are done at a parent’s request. There are two different ways that a parent can look at that. They can go to the school, and they can ask for that assessment to be done, or they can actually go out and get a private assessment done.

That information flows to the ministry after those assessments have been completed, because the funding follows the actual assessment. Once that assessment has been completed — whatever category or whatever information is gathered through that assessment — then the school district notifies us, for that additional funding.

J. Wickens: I think it’s a little unacceptable that the minister doesn’t think assessments are the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. In my district, wait times are two to three years. I, as a parent, did pay for a private ed assessment at $2,500. Many parents can’t do that. The minister’s earlier comments were that early identification and early intervention are very important, yet we have students waiting three years to get a psych-ed that’s needed in our public system.

[1645]

It isn’t always at the request of the parent. A lot of times it’s because a teacher identifies that there is a student with needs. Then that student goes on a wait-list in the district. So I very much do believe that it’s the ministry’s responsibility to see wait times go down.

Does the minister think that this amount of wait time for psych-ed assessments is acceptable?

[1650]

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the seat.

The member is asking about wait times for the psych-ed assessment. Obviously, you want to reduce the amount of wait times, as possible. The member, I think, is speaking from personal experience, as she mentioned. As a father myself, obviously, you’d want to have the least amount of wait time as possible.

The issue, though, is that there’s the statutory division of responsibilities that we have to consider here. When you’re looking at a specific region, community, the assessments are being done by professional psychologists in almost all cases — or should be. So those are not within the jurisdiction, obviously, of the Ministry of Education.

I do want to agree with what the member said earlier, too, about teachers. You are correct that teachers can sometimes be the first identifier, possibly before even a parent. The teacher spends so much time with a student, on a day-to-day basis, and can look for signals. A lot of our teachers are trained, and we continue to make sure our teachers are trained, to look for behavioural issues or others that might identify a student with special needs.

The member is quite accurate there. We need to make sure that the teachers are part of that. We want to make sure we have that early assessment. As I mentioned, obviously, that early assessment…. Whether it’s for educational outcomes around grades or even when it looks at behavioural issues that are maybe not identifiable earlier on, we want to make sure those are caught as early as possible.

The wait times. I can empathize there. We’re wanting to make sure that we have the least amount of wait times as possible. I’m just wanting the member to, hopefully, appreciate that that does not fall within the Ministry of Education — when we’re talking about community psychologists, which I have no control over.

J. Wickens: I’m going to move on. I’m going to clump a couple of questions together to try and make it a bit quicker, and I’m going to ask some questions around the document published by the Ministry of Education around restraint and seclusion.

My first question, really, is: at the ministry level, does the ministry employ a board-certified behaviour analyst to give direction on instances of restraint and seclusion? Is the ministry tracking whether or not districts are conducting functional behaviour assessments and ensuring that those happen? We’ll start with those.

[1655]

Hon. M. Bernier: When we speak about seclusion rooms specifically, I think we would all agree this is an absolute last resort. You would, hopefully, never want to actually see them being used. With that, we want to ensure we have policies in place, and to do that we want to make sure they’re reflective of advice from right across the sector.

When we were asked about the board makeup, or the advice with that, we engaged…. I’ll read these in just so we can appreciate how vast it is. We had Inclusion B.C., the Family Support Institute, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C. School Trustees, the B.C. Council of Administrators of Special Education — BCCASE. They were all brought in and reached into, obviously, their bank of professionals to help look at putting suggestions forward around this.

[1700]

It’s important to stress again that this is an absolute last-case situation. Any time there’s a child that appears to pose risks to themselves or others, we have the violence threat risk assessment that will be done, can be done, for that child to make sure that they get the required assessment and the required help that they need.

We have also the educational assessments, the functional behaviour assessments, that’ll be provided for all students whose pattern of behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others.

Again, the assessment portion is making sure that when we talk about the complete use of the rooms, we want to make sure that it’s taken very seriously, that it’s something that we don’t like to see have to take place. That’s why we’ve made sure that we worked with all of the different stakeholders to ensure that we have proper policies and procedures in place for school districts.

J. Wickens: I’m very much aware of the stakeholder groups that were involved in the creation of that document. The minister didn’t answer my questions around tracking the policies and procedures written within that document and whether there are resources being allotted to school districts to ensure that those policies are actually being performed and met with.

I would like to say that I’m looking forward to meeting with the ministry staff. I’m looking forward to going over a lot of the areas that I asked questions on today and really digging quite a bit deeper. I appreciate that opportunity, and I will follow up with the minister.

I’m going to pass it over now to my colleague that has some questions.

The Chair: Member for North Island — and my neighbour.

C. Trevena: Thank you, neighbour. You remembered. I am the member for North Island. I know that sometimes there are questions about whether my neighbour comes up and occasionally says that he’s from the north Island. However, I have questions from the north Island for the Minister of Education, and thank you for the opportunity to ask this question.

In February, the beginning of February, the school district 72 chair wrote to the minister. It was February 3, and it was signed by Susan Wilson, the board chair. It was about the problems that the school district is facing because of lack of funding and the fact that this lack of funding was putting them in an unfortunate position of having to consider school closures.

Since this letter was written, they have gone ahead and, unfortunately, closed two elementary schools, one in Campbell River and one just south of Campbell River, in the regional district area. There was obviously a huge amount of concern from both those communities.

I would like the minister to explain — I have two questions for him — why he has not yet responded to this letter, and secondly, whether he can answer some of the issues that were brought up in the letter, which include the fact that they have simply not had enough money, that they have had to make these administrative savings.

They have had to buy technology for the new generation network, which is actually not needed in the Campbell River school district, school district 72, because they’ve been very well served by the former Campbell River TV system and now Shaw. They’re having to make a switch that was previously unnecessary. And the fact that they are having to fund previously unanticipated costs and are now facing unplanned cuts of $1,021,570.

I wondered if the minister could answer those two questions: one, why the letter has not been responded to yet, and secondly, how he would answer the chair of the school board and the school district on these cuts.

[1705]

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll start with the letter. I just quickly looked at the letter. We’re in the process of just gathering up the final pieces of information for…. It was quite a detailed letter, quite a few different questions that the district asked. Obviously, we want to make sure we give a thorough answer. They should be seeing a response to that very, very soon.

When we look at the funding — specifically to the member’s comments too — for that school district, I just want her to be aware that…. When you look at the fact of that specific school district 72, there has gone down by 23 percent the amount of students in that district, so you have a lot fewer students in that area that we are trying to service within that district. At the same time, their budget has gone up by $3 million.

I also want the member to know that this is why we allow the local school districts to make the decisions within the budgets that they have. They have received increased funding, 23 percent fewer students.

At the same time, in 2011, the school district had a $2.5 million surplus. In the last four years, at the beginning of
[ Page 12199 ]
this last school year, they’ve grown that to $7.5 million as a surplus that they have within the district right now.

[1710]

Again, those are opportunities that school districts have, to make local decisions to be able to utilize the funds that they feel are best for their constituents and for the students in that area.

C. Trevena: When the minister says there has been increased funding, he doesn’t include the fact that there are increased costs to the school districts, whether it’s MSP, whether it’s hydro. As individuals, we feel the burden. As an organization…. The school district is one of the biggest employers in Campbell River. It’s a large bureaucracy. There are lots of teachers involved. There are lots of support staff involved. It’s a very big organization, and they have to carry those extra costs. You have a decreased student population, but you still have to keep schools running and schools up to standard, make sure that they are heated and lit and kept clean and that regular maintenance is done.

The letter. I know that there are many, many areas in this letter, but the minister has a large staff. You’d have thought that a letter sent on February 3 could have been responded to before April 13. I mean, we are talking well over two months.

Just to respond to the minister’s statement that they have all this wonderful money. School district 72 is a fantastic school district. There is no question. It’s innovative. It’s creative. It has a very mixed school population. It’s got the urban sense of Campbell River, with the downtown schools there. You’ve got the rural schools. It’s a spread, a very big mix, of students. It has had, traditionally…. They’ve been very creative.

In fact, just next week Carihi high school, one of the two high schools in Campbell River, is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It’s going to be celebrating 50 years of being really one of the innovative schools, I would say, in the whole province.

The letter that the minister still hasn’t been able to respond to really does set out why there are problems with his view of: “We’ve given them more money; it should all be okay.” I’d just like to put this on the record, some of the letter, and leave the minister to respond, hopefully in writing to the school district, which I think is assuming that there will not be a response now. I’ll actually start at the beginning. It’s to the minister:

“The locally elected board of education for school district 72 is increasingly concerned with government actions which are having an impact on our ability to deliver education programming, provide adequate learning resources to our students, adequately keep our classrooms in good condition for learning and maintain our schools in order to prevent larger costs for repairs in the future.

“Earlier funding reductions outside of those that resulted from enrolment decline have, in the past, resulted in reduced education programming, fewer learning supplies in our classrooms, reduced janitorial services in our schools and deferred maintenance of our district infrastructure.

“The board is provided with an increasingly limited number of dollars that must be spread over a wide variety of needs in our district, and some needs, of necessity, must take a lower priority than others.

“On behalf of the board of education, I” — the board chair — “am writing to express concern with the constant downloading of education costs to our district. In the last provincial budget” — obviously, 2015 — “our board was stripped of more than $295,000 in administrative savings. Last month school district 72 was burdened with the $155,000 cost of buying the technology required to access the provincially mandated new generation network” — which I have explained was not necessary for the school district.

“Additionally, the provincial holdback has been allocated to other districts as a consequence of increased school enrolment and the influx of Syrian refugee children. Consequently, an additional $178,000 that had been assigned to pay for the district’s connection to the new generation network has been lost to school district 72.

“Finally, your government’s recognition of the need to begin to compensate our administrators fairly — in view of the provincially imposed 6½ year wage freeze — but its failure to fund this increase has resulted in an unanticipated $139,570 in additional costs to district 72. When these amounts are added to the approximately $254,000 in administrative savings for the 2016-2017 school year, our district is facing unplanned cuts of $1,021,570. With a structural deficit approximating $600,000 to $900,000, school district 72 is once again being forced to make hard choices about which services we will have to curtail in order to submit a balanced budget.

[1715]

“This, of course, is unsustainable and that your government continues to download ever-increasing costs to school districts without providing the funding that would allow them to address these increased costs is causing serious damage to the public education system in this province.”

As I mentioned, the school district, at this stage, was considering closing two schools. It has now gone ahead and made the decision to close two schools, to great concern within the communities, both south of Campbell River and north of Campbell River.

I do think that the minister’s answers to my previous question were inadequate. I would like the minister to fully explain how the school districts get beyond where they are, because if everything was working as the minister said, we would have those two schools still open, and we would have the system working properly. So I’d like the minister to explain how he squares that circle.

[1720]

Hon. M. Bernier: As I committed to the member, we will respond to that letter right away. There were some, as the member read it out…. I don’t want to get into the details here. I appreciate the work the school district has done in writing me a letter. There were some inaccuracies within the letter — some of their assumptions. That’s why I’ll make sure that we respond to them as soon as we can to make sure that that information is straightened out.

The member actually answered some of her own questions when she was starting. When you talk about the expenses to a school district — when you talk about heat and lights and teachers’ salaries and staff salaries and
[ Page 12200 ]
everything that goes on within a school district — that is what the school district looks at all the time. And when you have a district that has 23 percent fewer students, they need to make decisions on how to best to utilize the funds that they receive — and this year, again, an increase of almost $60 on a per-student funding that’s going to school districts.

I understand, if I have my information correctly from what I remember reading on this specific district, they are looking at closing two schools. They have said that they will use some of their savings in order to look at other operational costs.

I think when you look at a school district specifically, when you look at the two schools that they’re looking at suggesting to close, one of the schools has 35 percent utilization and one has 53 percent utilization. So you have schools that are, you know, one-third full.

Of course, nobody wants to have to close a school. I know the families would obviously not want to see a school being closed. The community — those are tough decisions, even for the school district to have to make. But when you have a school that’s one-third full and you are paying for the heat and the lights for empty classrooms, that’s where school districts look to try to make savings.

I think that’s the right thing to do. The school districts, as the elected officials, are responsible to ensure that they’re respectfully using the taxpayers’ dollars wisely. But also there’s a lot of savings and other opportunities that are coming to that specific school district this year as well. The teacher pension plan, funds that they’re not going to have to pay this year, is going to be saving them $441,000. And that’s extra money for them. That’s on top of the increased funding that is going out to school districts on our per-pupil rate as well.

M. Mark: In 2015, B.C.’s Auditor General released a report critical of the government for failing to meet its 2005 goal of reaching an 85 percent graduation rate for aboriginal students. Today’s graduation rate for aboriginal students is still only 62 percent, compared to 87 percent for non-aboriginal students.

The report stated that one of the central reasons for this was: “a lack of leadership demonstrated by the Ministry of Education.” The Auditor added that despite government’s public commitment in 2005, the Ministry of Education had not fully exercised its duties and powers to close the gap for aboriginal students.

The report highlighted the fact that schools were giving Evergreen certificates, which were originally created for students with special needs who would never be able to graduate with a Dogwood diploma. The school completion certificate, also known as the Evergreen, does not give access to post-secondary education and is not the equivalent of a graduation certificate in the job market.

Will the minister advise which school districts were using Evergreen certificates and not Dogwoods for aboriginal students? Can the minister tell us the percentage of Evergreens versus Dogwoods in the highest districts within the province?

[1725-1730]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. M. Bernier: We’re talking about the Evergreen certificates. When you look at the announcement that I made, working with FNESC…. I believe it was in February of this spring. We said that for the province of British Columbia to avoid either the misuse or perceived misuse of Evergreen certificates, I’d released a ministerial order that said all Evergreen certificates can only be used if there’s an IEP for a student, whether it’s aboriginal or non-aboriginal.

Just to give some clarification, though, and some context for the member around this, there were 928 Evergreens that were given out last year. One of the big things is that any time an Evergreen is used, we want to make sure that that’s being used appropriately.

The member is completely right that there’s more work to do. We worked very closely with the Auditor General when that report was being tabled. We made commitments that we would like to see aboriginal completion rates go higher. That does not change. When we look at the fact that we’ve gone from 39 percent to 63 percent, I would say there’s been a lot of improvement. But in saying that, there’s a lot more to do.

I’ve been touring around the province, as I’ve mentioned, and I have to make sure I highlight some of the great work that is taking place. When I look at when…. I was in Squamish and Whistler, for instance, and they’re at par. There, 84 or 85 percent is their completion rate, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal. There’s been some great work that’s taken place.

One of the things that we’ve seen is through the local enhancement agreements, making sure we have those relationships at a local level between the school districts and the local First Nations. It’s to ensure, as we’re rolling out the new curriculum, that there’s more involvement, that the curriculum is really being open enough, that First Nations and aboriginal students are more engaged, that they understand the importance of making sure their history and their culture is reflected within the curriculum — which we’re hoping and anticipating will help keep students in school as well.

For both sides, I think we would agree, we want to see those numbers improve. I think every child is entitled to the same education in the province of B.C.

The Chair: I recognize the minister…. Sorry, I recognize the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Minister? Woo-hoo! Looking ahead. [Laughter.] Just practising.
[ Page 12201 ]

The question. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant had a very specific question about numbers. I’m assuming that those numbers are going to come to the member.

I wanted to follow up on the issue of Evergreens. It wasn’t my original question, but it does remind me of a discussion that we had in Public Accounts some months ago, where I asked the question as a result of the Auditor General’s report on the education of aboriginal students in the B.C. public school system. I asked a very specific question about how many aboriginal students had received the Evergreen. The answer that I was given — it’s just gone off my computer — was, I believe, around 60 students. That was for the year 2013-14.

We now have an FOI response that says the number of aboriginal students that received B.C. school completion certificates in 2013-14 was 271. So my question is why Mr. Byng gave me the answer in Public Accounts of 60, whereas in the table that we received from the ministry, it was 271.

[1735]

Hon. M. Bernier: Thanks for the next question, which is going to allow me to have the extra time. We were able to get information on the specific question prior to as well.

The 271 number that was referenced is all aboriginal students that received a completion certificate — an Evergreen. Within that, it encompasses all students who are students with special needs and IEPs as well.

The real targets would be the 60. So 60 out of the 271 are students who received the completion certificates that did not have IEPs. That’s the whole point, again, of when we made the announcement this February around making sure that only students that have IEPs are able to receive the Evergreen, that every child is entitled to the same education.

I hope that explains where those numbers came from for the member.

K. Corrigan: I’m not going to ask another question on that. I have a different question. If you look at the transcript of that Public Accounts meeting, the question was not how many First Nations or aboriginal students there are that don’t have an IEP. The question was how many aboriginal students there are that received an Evergreen certificate.

I think the response was somewhat misleading. Certainly, there was no explanation that went along with it — a clarification — at the time. That’s concerning.

My question is about the Burnaby school district. I was a school trustee in Burnaby for nine years. I have been responsible for having to do those budgets, and I can tell the minister that we had a very, very efficient, very well-run school district.

[1740]

I know the minister has responded repeatedly in the House and in here, when people ask about cuts to public education, to K-to-12 education, and has repeatedly said: “Well, there’s fat. There’s low-hanging fruit. There are administrative costs and administrative savings that could happen, and school district enrolments are going down.”

Well, the school district of Burnaby has the third-lowest administrative costs in the province. They’re a very well run district. After years of fairly flat enrolment, their enrolment is going up. Yet in an open letter last week, the Burnaby district parent advisory council, which represents every one of the 49 public schools in Burnaby, voiced their frustration at $10 million in cuts to staffing resources, supplies and services compared to five years ago.

Now, just a proviso. That is the parent advisory council’s number, and it is correct. Having spoken to the district, that’s a little bit misleading because there’s other money that came from other sources. I don’t want to mislead on that, but there have been significant cuts.

I want to quote from the open letter. I’m not going to read the whole thing, but I just want to get a couple of quotes from it on the record. Here’s what they say. They say, “We feel that our district is fiscally well managed,” but that “these cuts are due to the chronic underfunding of the education system. This is not just a Burnaby problem. It is a provincial issue….”

They also say, in their press release: “Representatives at the district parent meeting unanimously agreed that the province is failing to provide ‘stable, predictable funding, adequate capital funding for seismic upgrades and new schools, resources to identify and address the growing number of students with special needs and minimal language skills.’”

My question to the minister: will the minister finally acknowledge what the parents in Burnaby and all across this province know? It is not waste. It’s the government’s lack of support for public education that is causing schools to close and services to be cut, and that’s a failure for children and families in every school district in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Bernier: The member is right, actually, when you look at Burnaby being one of the communities that has not seen declining enrolment.

[1745]

Burnaby is one of those districts that has increased. In fact, in the 2015-16 school year, they’re up four kids over what they were the year before, according to the funding that they’ve asked for. I don’t mean to sound flippant when I say that. In fact, most school districts around the province have seen a decline, and they have been a very stable school district.

When we talk about the funding specifically and you look at the Burnaby school district, their budget has gone up $54 million in the last 15 years. Even though their enrolment has stayed stable — they haven’t really had a substantial increase in population within the district
[ Page 12202 ]
— they’ve received just shy of $55 million of an increase into their budget.

When you also look at the commitment that we’ve made this year, I would anticipate, actually, Burnaby will probably grow again this year. We’ve added $60 to the per-pupil funding, which means Burnaby will see yet another increase this year.

We have committed 100 percent, as I’ve mentioned previously, to funding the teachers contract that we’ve negotiated. We’ve also committed to making sure, as we do the counts for Syrian refugees…. The member may correct me if I’m wrong. I assume Burnaby, being the beautiful place that it is, will probably see Syrian refugees choosing to live there because of the opportunities that Burnaby has.

When you look, again, back to the budget, though, and the commitments around making sure the students are funded, that specific school district is going to be having an extra $2 million this year with less funds that they have to pay for the teachers pension plan. They have $10 million, approximately, in surplus in that school district. I think that goes to the member’s point that they’ve done a very good job of managing their funds and making sure that they have good education in that district.

I do want to correct the member, though, when she talks about the lack of investment in the area. In fact, we’ve spent, just in the last five years, just shy of $150 million in the Burnaby school district on seismically upgrading schools and building new facilities.

When you look at the fact that it’s a stable community…. People move around within that community, which is why new schools are needed to be built. And of course, safety is number one, which is why we’ve committed to working with them.

The school district has been a great school district to work with. Even after the member left, they continued to be a good school district to work with, and we’ll continue working with them to make sure we meet their needs.

K. Corrigan: I’m not going to ask another question, but I just want to clarify about the surplus. The minister has mentioned surpluses repeatedly when questions are asked, either in question period or here. The surplus that Burnaby has is not $10 million extra. It’s because the district of Burnaby knows, as other districts know, that funding for public education is not stable. They know that there is increasing pressure and that they’re going to have to make cuts, as they have had to do over the last years. Cuts are happening. Cuts are happening in district after district.

The surplus is preserved because of the lack of ability from year to year…. It is a prudent thing that districts do. They say: “We are not going to have enough money next year. So rather than making deep cuts next year, we’re going to make small cuts now, because we know it’s going to get worse next year.” And they save some of that money.

It’s not because they have $10 million sitting around. It’s because they know they’re going to have to make deeper cuts the next year, and they’re trying to do the prudent thing and protect those cuts from being very, very deep in any particular year. But there have been cuts year after year after year.

Hon. M. Bernier: I would just say that for this district, there has been stable, predictable funding. Funding has gone up year after year after year in that district. Their student population has stayed, for the most part, flat. They’ve received more money every year.

When I reference the surplus, the member says that they’re holding onto the surplus. But in fact, they’ve grown their surplus year over year. They’ve gone from $2 million in surplus to closer to $10 million in surplus, so they continue to grow the surplus.

I don’t want to argue the fact, though, that Burnaby school district, just like every other school district in the province and the people who are elected to run those school districts, is doing exceptional work for the students.

[1750]

V. Huntington: Just by way of introduction, I’d like to welcome the civics class from Delta Senior Secondary to this meeting. They are watching the proceedings as we sit, probably with their teacher Mr. Powell. It is because of this civics class that I’m here asking this particular question today.

I am lucky enough to have a youth advisory council in my riding, a member of whom is in this civics class. Maggie came to me a couple of weeks ago with a very serious concern that she and her colleagues in the class had been discussing, and that was the fear that civics 11 was going to be dropped from the curriculum.

The Ministry of Education, during its various stops around the province on the ministry in-service days, has advised the teachers in the province that no current courses are being dropped in the curriculum changes.

While civics 11 is currently a provincially examinable course in grade 11 in high schools around B.C., it’s a course that is more like political science than any other. It’s a course that, probably more than any other, introduces students to the realities of democracy, the structure of government in democracy, the responsibilities of the various levels of government and how government generally works.

Yet civics 11 — or civics, period — is not listed at this moment in the proposal for grades 10 to 12 curriculum on the ministry’s website. I am concerned about this. The students are concerned about this. I would wonder if the minister could give us assurances that that’s incorrect and that it is, indeed, remaining part of the curriculum.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you to the member for the question, and thanks to the Delta civics 11 class that is
[ Page 12203 ]
watching. I probably should clarify for those students that as the minister, I’m not able to change their grades but, with that, I’m also not able to assign homework, so they’re safe with me right now.

[1755]

One of the specifics around the new curriculum that’s rolling out around the civics class…. Nothing will change next year. If there’s demand within a school, within a district, and if they’re offering it and choose to offer it because of that demand, that will continue to be there next year at a district-by-district decision basis.

We’re rolling out right now, as I think the member is aware, the draft curriculum for 10 to 12, which will be going out to the school districts as an implementation year. That first year is the flexibility, but it’s really about trying to look at the feedback. So right now is the perfect time for anybody in every district, teachers as well, to be able to supply feedback if there are things that they think they would like changed or added. We’re also going to be able to do that right through until the ’17-18 school year. Of course, we encourage people to be involved and to have input.

I just want to stress, though, that the working group that was working on the 10-to-12 curriculum had specifically highlighted civics as an important part that should be addressed throughout the curriculum.

V. Huntington: It’s a hopeful answer, but not one that gives the students or me much assurance that there really is a decision in the ministry to maintain the civics classes.

I’d like to tell the minister a bit of a story that came out of a discussion my youth advisory council had one day. It was perhaps one of the finest discussions among youth that I’ve ever participated in. The question was: is democracy something that needs to be taught at the schools, has it been taught effectively, and when should it start in the school system?

Those students said that basically, they had never talked about democracy in their schools. As they thought about it more and more, they felt that the discussion needed to start in grade 4 — that the issues needed to be brought to light by grade 4, that an understanding of democracy should be taking place starting in grade 4, that an understanding that it was a commitment a citizen had to make should be followed in each grade subsequently, that the civics courses in the school became very important to create a modern understanding of the democratic process in a country that has so many different cultures as parts of it and that the school system could play an extraordinary role if it created an entire process in which the democratic system unfolded in front of the new students so that government became an understanding.

Cultures come to this country with no understanding of what democracy essentially is. In the school system, we could start teaching that, and it should unfold from an early age and become part and parcel of everything they understand about their country by the time they graduate.

All I can say is that that came out of the mouths of students who felt that they had been bereft of that knowledge throughout their schooling days. I think that if there is any chance civics is going to be dropped from the curriculum at any point, it should be made very clear that the students can come forward now. The districts should be making it a public discussion so that students aren’t left with no understanding of what the system of government is and the blood, sweat and tears that history sees created how we live today.

I thank the minister, but I’m not terribly grateful for the answer at this point.

Hon. M. Bernier: I always try to aim to please, and I’ll maybe give another comment back to the member.

I think the point, again, as the member alluded to, is around the student feedback. Obviously, civics is important, but when we look at it from a district-by-district level, it’s important that that communication takes place within the school system. If there are enough kids, enough students, that want to take the course, then obviously, from a school district level, they would look at offering that.

[1800]

The comments around the earlier years. Of course, civics in general, in a lot of ways, is entrenched in other subjects such as social studies. I bring that up because I want to highlight the changes around the new curriculum. The new curriculum that we have that is rolling out, that was rolled out last year and will be implemented at the start of the ’16-17 school year for the K to 9 really allows that flexibility and that opportunity.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the member that we want to make sure that our students get all of those questions that they have answered. We want to make sure that when we talk about our democratic system, when we talk about the political realities that we have here in British Columbia and Canada, when we look at how this country was formed and how we want it to continue…. Those are great discussions to have, the history, and it will really inspire kids to look at the future.

The new curriculum will allow just that, because it gives that flexibility for them to dive into some of those passions. It allows the teachers the flexibility to work with the students to try to make those passions and those questions become answers and realities.

G. Holman: I expect the minister might guess about the question I might be asking here, about the Bayside School roof replacement. I do want to say, for the record, that I do appreciate the minister’s commitment to replace the roof.

I wanted to get the minister to give me an update on the state of play. My understanding is the school district
[ Page 12204 ]
is working on design and costing information for the minister. The minister has publicly committed to replace the roof but was awaiting information from the school district before he wanted to make a commitment with regard to actual cost estimates and committing to an actual dollar figure.

Could the minister give me an update, as far as he understands, about the replacement of the Bayside School roof?

Hon. M. Bernier: The member…. I appreciate the question. It’ll help give the opportunity to bring him and those concerned on this up to speed.

The school district actually has been working with the staff, as the member knows, for quite some time. I did go out and tour the school and see firsthand the issues that they were addressing.

The school district worked very hard for many years to try to rectify the situation, with no success, which is why they turned to us and said that the funding they receive annually under their annual facilities grants was not going to meet the needs in order to put an entire new roof on. They were trying to fix the leaks.

I did commit then that we would be working with the school district to fix that roof. I did not commit to a dollar amount, truthfully, because we didn’t know what the dollar amount was.

[1805]

We then turned around and tasked the school district to go back and make sure they had architects and engineers and others come forward to make sure they could really do a proper cost analysis based on the state of the roof. They would have to make sure, because we didn’t want to commit to a number and then find out it might not be accurate.

That work has been done, I’m told. It is within the ministry. It has not come to me yet because we just received it.

We have committed to working with the school district. My commitment is still there. We will look at that information they gave to us. We will evaluate it, just to make sure that, we hope, those numbers look accurate, at which point I will publicly come out with the dollar amounts that are anticipated to fix that roof.

We were hoping, as we worked with the school district, to expedite this as quickly as possible. The reason for that was that obviously we want to try to have this issue solved throughout the summer months and before next winter hits, when the rain season starts again.

I hope that answers the member’s question. I can’t, obviously, give the actual dollar amounts yet, until I review it, and then I will publicly come out with those numbers.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll start with the easy question. This one the minister should be able to knock out of the park. It’s a huge political win for the government. They’d be able to cheer and have press conferences — do all sorts of things. It would create over 35 child care spaces, if he says yes. It would create 40 to 60 lower-income affordable housing units — possibly more, depending on how it’s run.

All the minister needs to do is say yes to a new, inclusive elementary school in Coal Harbour. It’s been on the capital budget requests from the Vancouver school board for years. I think the first time it went in was 2001, maybe 2002. My understanding is that they’ve made the request again to build the school.

The city has the money for the affordable housing. The city has the money for the child care. All we need is the money for the school. Then the overcrowded conditions in downtown Vancouver schools will be alleviated, and you’ll get all those benefits. Will the minister say yes today so we can get that school built, as we’ve long been calling for?

[1810]

Hon. M. Bernier: Thanks to the member. He and I have had discussions around this before.

One of the things I’ll go to first is the importance of a long-range facilities plan within the school district. When you really look at some areas of the large school district of Vancouver, unfortunately, on average, it’s seeing a decrease of enrolment when you look at the district as a whole. But when you look at parts of the district, such as where the member is referring to, there are growth areas.

That’s why, at a school district level, we want to ensure that when we talk about utilization rates, when we talk about making sure that we have opportunities for the growth areas, money is appropriately spent there.

When you look over the next year, the top priorities that we have, really, that we’re focusing on in the school district right now, are specifically around safety. We have right now around 14 top priority projects — there’s seismic mitigation — spread around the district in different areas, as we work not only with the Vancouver school district but work through the Vancouver project office as well. We want to make sure that we look at all the different opportunities around the district to make sure that money is spent appropriately.

Again, Vancouver school district itself is going to be receiving the lion’s share, in a lot of ways, of capital funding this year. That is for seismic. Places like Surrey, we’re working with for growth.

I take the member’s point that there’s opportunity in that school district for growth areas. That’s why I’m just waiting for the final long-range facilities plan that the Vancouver school district is working on right now, I believe. I’m pretty sure they’re going through consultations on the long-range facilities plan as well.

Right now, though, for the Coal Harbour project…. Just to let him know, with the long-range facilities plan and the capital priorities that the school district has put
[ Page 12205 ]
forward to us, Coal Harbour isn’t their top priority right now. Of course, I would encourage the member to work with them.

[1815]

Right now the new King George Secondary has come forward from them as a higher priority. I will ensure that I’m accurate about that. As well, they have the school at the Olympic Village. It’s coming forward. So there are growth areas in that part of Vancouver. I will agree and encourage him to work with the school district to make some good decisions to make things like that happen.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would, then, ask about King George high school and if that’s the higher priority, but I expect I’d get the same answer. Until Vancouver closes schools, we won’t get any construction money for a new school. I’m just guessing. I won’t go there, but based on the minister’s answer…. I just think the Cole Harbour project is so exciting. You could build much-needed affordable housing now and much-needed daycare and child care spaces now.

My next question won’t come as a surprise, since I’ve asked the minister about it many times, both in the House and outside the House and as recently as this morning. I know the minister likely won’t need to huddle on this, as he’s spoken about it himself. If the minister could provide me an update on when — I’m going to say when because I want it to be real — we are going to have real inclusive policies for lesbian, gay, bi and transgender students. Specific policy because, of course, targeted violence and targeted hatred require a targeted response.

I know the minister agrees with me that we wouldn’t, when we had a spike in bank robberies, just tell everybody: “Crime is bad. Don’t be a criminal.” We would actually go against targeting the bank robbers. Well, gay, lesbian, bi and trans kids are getting targeted for violence in extreme situations. We need a targeted response to those attacking them.

If the minister could give me an update. I really want us to have a policy, as almost every other province in Canada does, to be inclusive for LGBT kids.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thanks to the member for the question. He and I have had, as he knows, as he said, some good discussions on this issue. It’s something that I think both sides…. Everybody agrees.

Obviously, we want to make sure that no child and no student is bullied for any reason, whether it’s race, sex, gender, gender identity. All of those really make individuals unique in their own rights. They deserve to have a safe education and to have a safe environment to be in as well.

One of the things that I’ve asked for and that we have started doing is…. We’re working very closely within the ministry with the LGBTQ alliances. We’re starting to have some very good and frank discussions on looking at opportunities to ensure that we’re advancing this important issue into the schools.

I don’t want to take away from the great work that’s actually taking place in the schools already when you look at districts right around the province. That’s why we support the boards of education and the decisions that they’re making. They know firsthand, at a school level…. I’d not even say a district but a school-by-school level.

[1820]

They really have those identifiable needs that they can see. More importantly, they can see when there are certain issues that need to be addressed, which is why that flexibility to really work at a district level to ensure that…. Obviously, policies need to be in place like that to ensure against bullying. I won’t get into the whole conversation around the ERASE Bullying strategy and everything we’re doing because the member is well aware of that.

Maybe I’ll just end off by saying I appreciate the discussion that the member and I’ve been having and the discussions that we’re having internally within the ministry right now with all our different stakeholders and groups that are meeting on this issue. We have a lot of people within the ministry, obviously, that want to continue looking at this to ensure that all children are safe in schools and look forward to continue coming up with ideas for that.

D. Eby: Thank you to my colleague, the critic, for allowing me some time to ask this really important question.

Just before I begin…. It’s difficult to sit here and hear the minister talk about all the things he believes he’s doing for students in public education knowing what’s happening in my constituency, with parents fundraising for photocopy paper. The school board can’t even afford to build playgrounds anymore. Basic stuff is not happening anymore, and everybody knows what’s going on. So it’s difficult. I just want to note on the record that it’s difficult to sit here and hear this minister go on about his funding and his recommendation that we close 20 schools in Vancouver in order to pay for the basics.

The question is quite straightforward. I ask the minister each year about it. One of the parent advisory groups I’m incredibly proud of in my community is the Bayview parent advisory group. They’re incredibly passionate about their school, incredibly passionate about their kids. They’re worried about the safety of the children in the school because it’s not seismically upgraded. They’ve been waiting and waiting, and they’ve watched the ministry push back plans for seismic upgrading repeatedly. Maintenance isn’t being done at the school because they’re expecting a seismic upgrade. The conditions are deteriorating.

I’ll ask the minister a very straightforward question. When will the seismic upgrade happen at the Bayview Elementary School in Vancouver?

[1825]

Hon. M. Bernier: The critic says I can say whatever I want now on this answer, so I appreciate the flexibility that he’s giving me.

Specific to the Bayview question. I appreciate this information. We’ll make sure the member gets it too. The Bayview seismic is one of the ones that was identified by government — for lots of different reasons, specifically around utilization — that needs to move forward for a seismic upgrade. We do recognize that.

As I mentioned, we are committed to making sure, in the Vancouver school district and right across all the school districts, that seismic upgrades take place and are completed.

With doing that, we work with the school districts themselves to make sure that they identify the priorities. We have asked the Vancouver school district, to my knowledge, to add Bayview as a seismic. The reason why I say “add” is because, presently, in their long-range facilities plan, the Vancouver school district has not listed this school as one of their priorities that they would like to see move forward in the short term.

From a ministry standpoint, though, we feel that this is a good opportunity. We’re going to continue working with the Vancouver school district and the Vancouver project office to ensure that this project and the seismic mitigation of this school becomes a reality.

D. Routley: I’d like to ask the minister a couple of questions about the challenges facing the Nanaimo board of education, parents and students of my constituency around school closures and a loss of services.

I’d like to read a question that’s been supplied to me by a parent of students in Cinnabar Valley. Cinnabar Valley, for the information of the minister, is placed pretty much equidistance between two high schools in that area. One is Cedar high school, and one is John Barsby.

There is a contention in the district around plans that were in place to close Cedar high school. It has now been decided by the board to keep Cedar high school open, but that has forced some parents in the Cinnabar Valley into a situation where their children must be bused to Cedar high school, but they feel more identity with the Barsby community in Nanaimo.

The parents, being on the edge of catchment areas, are upset that they’re not able to exercise their choice of which school for their children to go to without losing transportation subsidy. The question is….

“Our community and, most importantly, our children are suffering under the policy changes to our education funding. It seems that a lot of decisions are being made without ‘best interests of the child’ in mind. We, as a community, vote to bring educated, compassionate and collaborative people to our government, and our expectations are that wise, well-thought-out decisions are made by our elected officials.

“At this time in our community, it appears a few decisions have been made that negatively impact our children with no consideration to their well-being. What has this government done to ensure the safe and timely transportation of our children to their educational institutions? Has there been collaboration with B.C. Transit to initiate conversations around bus schedules and routes that would pick up the pieces left by the lack of funding for school buses.”

[1830]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Now, this is, of course, an important issue, particularly in rural communities where districts are forced to decide on catchment areas, catchment boundaries, when the ministry has indicated that those catchment boundaries don’t really exist, that parents have the choice of where to register their students, but it appears they don’t have equal services once they make that choice.

Can the minister help me with this?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the seat.

Thanks to the member for the question. Understandably, there have been lots of changes over the last few years within that school district as they try to rectify their priorities as they move forward. I know that that has changed a few times.

When it comes to whether it’s the catchment areas, the boundaries, or whether it comes to transportation, school closures, school improvements, those decisions completely rest with the local school districts themselves. I just wanted the member to be clear. There’s nothing within the ministry where we talk about catchment areas for the districts or within the schools. Those are made at a local level, based on that.

I know we have looked at investments within the area. We just spent, just recently, close to $24 million on the seismic upgrade for Wellington Secondary School as well.

We continue to work with the school district. We allow for flexibility at the local level as they work within the community. That’s why the consultation process is so important when they look at different changes within catchments or school opportunities or closures.

D. Routley: The minister knows that I prefer a friendly relationship with him, but we’ve also had the conversation that this is a little bit different from that, when we’re in these roles.

I have to say that I’m very disappointed. I continue to be disappointed over many years now, as a three-term MLA, bringing these questions to the government and hearing the same answers when, in fact, my own experience as a school trustee, my experience working with different districts and different boards over these years as an MLA, is clear, crystal clear, that decisions are being made on the basis of lack of funding rather than defensible educational, pedagogical reasoning.

[1835]

I’ve asked every minister that I’ve encountered in those 12 years this question. That is: would he/she — now he — manage my daughter’s allowance? I would encourage the minister to double her allowance. Then, after doubling her allowance, the minister could force upon her the costs of increased hydro fees and the doubled MSP premiums of her teacher and the unfunded contract obligations to her teacher. At the end of the week, when she comes back to me and says, “Dad, I don’t have money for these extra costs,” I will refer her to the minister to have the minister explain how she’s getting more allowance than ever in history — the highest allowance in history — so what’s she complaining about? Should be lots of money.

That’s the situation that boards face. Rather than smaller class sizes, they’ve seen larger class sizes contribute to emptying classrooms, thereby creating empty space and the argument that the minister referred to in question period yesterday, referring to empty classrooms as wasted public dollars. What people would like to see is that those classrooms be occupied by students, but fewer students.

My own sister had a class last year in Vancouver. There were three grade levels, with five special needs students and three more awaiting designation — two of those extreme behavioural — and it just about killed her. This is from a family where grandmother, mother, sisters — all relatives — have been in the education field as teachers. So she certainly knows, thought she knew, what to expect.

Having wasted $200 million on BCeSIS, having downloaded so many costs, having really, like…. I’m disappointed every time I hear a minister hide behind, “Well, it’s a local decision,” when, in fact, those decisions are being driven by the fact that we’re the ninth poorest-funded per capita, per student and percentage of GDP, of the ten provinces in Canada.

I think the minister — I would hope — can do a better job of assuring Nanaimo parents, the board and students that the board will be able to make decisions based on the betterment of their education, based on educationally, pedagogically defensible positions and ideas rather than simply a shortfall of funds year after year after year; and year after year after year, ministers referring to the highest per-student funding ever; and year after year after year, me having to ask them to manage my daughter’s allowance, which I’m sure they don’t really want to do. It’s no fun.

Could the minister comment?

Hon. M. Bernier: Well, I won’t comment specifically on managing the member’s daughter’s allowance. You didn’t mention how much she gets. He looks like a nice father, and I’m hoping she gets a substantial allowance to do what she chooses to do.

The issue around a couple of things that the member brought up…. First of all, class sizes are legislated numbers. So if there’s an increase in class size in a school district, those are very rare, but those are also times where there are discussions between the teachers, the principals, usually — in most circumstances — for grades 11 and 12, for courses that require graduation. So it’s usually in those circumstances.

Specifically to that school district, there are some decisions that need to be made. In the analogy that the member was trying to portray of using his daughter’s allowance and having all these extra costs, he leaves out the part about how circumstances have changed in life.

We have 3,000 fewer students in that school district. The argument would be different if everything was equal, which it’s not. In all the school districts around the province…. They’re all unique. When you have 3,000 fewer students in this school district, it does allow for opportunities that the school district needs to look at of how they could better utilize the funds in that area.

With that, in the last 15 years, that school district, while they’ve gone down 3,000 students, has seen an increase of $13 million in their budget. That’s money that the school district gets to use to make sure that they continue on with the great education that I’m sure the member would, hopefully, agree that they receive in that area.

[1840]

We’ve been investing money around the province in education, so when I talk about this, when I talk about our record investment, I think it’s important to highlight that it comes along with record and great student achievements.

When we mention the fact that we invest into a school district…. We talk about $481 million that we put in for students with special needs, additional funding there, and then you look at the fact that our completion rates for students with special needs have gone up 195 percent. You look at money that we’re investing around the school districts in growth areas for building new schools. We talk about $1.7 billion that we’re investing over the next three years in capital to make sure we have our safety of our seismic taken care of as we go forward and new schools being built. We continue with those investments.

I also want to correct the member opposite. I’m trying to do it in a cordial way, because as he mentioned, we usually have a great relationship and have very frank, honest discussions. But when we talk about the settlement with the teachers, the teachers settlement is 100 percent funded. We have committed to that. We have put that in the budget. We have $110 million this year that we’ve put into the budget again to meet those commitments.

We’ve also made sure, as we move forward, that we are following through with our commitments to make sure that the 6,500 new students that are in the province of British Columbia are completely funded as well, as well as all the Syrian refugees.

I don’t want to completely take away from the member’s point, and that is that there are some tough deci-
[ Page 12208 ]
sions for the school district to make in his specific area. But when you look at the fact that there are 3,000 fewer students, their budget continues to go up. This is why we allow the local school districts to decide where that funding is going to go.

D. Donaldson: Lake Kathlyn Elementary School is a special school with special programs and a special staff. They have a relatively high percentage of children identified with learning challenges, in the 20 percent range, and have been commended for doing a superlative job in helping these children reach their potential. Likely, class size has something to do with this.

Last night, the school district voted to close Lake Kathlyn Elementary. I know school trustees didn’t want to have to do that, and for sure, the kids, parents and families didn’t want that outcome. To say parents are disappointed is an understatement; they’re devastated.

What is unfortunate is that it didn’t have to be that way. There were choices made by the B.C. Liberals that directly resulted in this closure. They insisted on a so-called administrative savings plan to be foisted on school district 54 and other school districts in the province. This means an overall $54 million clawback from school districts, if you total last year and this budget we’re considering here. In real terms, that means school district 54 had to come up with $380,000 in administrative savings. Closing Lake Kathlyn will save the school district $210,000 — so a large chunk of the operational reductions mandated under this minister and this government’s clawback plan.

That was Premier Clark’s government’s choice. They also chose over the last year and in this budget to give a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent in the province worth $236 million in 2015-16 and another $236 million in this year, almost half a billion dollars. Meanwhile, they are forcing school districts to close for administrative savings to try to balance the budget on the backs of kids and families.

This budget has a contingency of $450 million for unforeseen circumstances. The administrative savings clawback for this budget is $25 million. Will the minister commit to go to the Treasury Board with the request for $25 million in contingency funding from that $450 million pot so that school districts will not have to close schools like Lake Kathlyn? Use the contingency to protect children’s education.

Hon. M. Bernier: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite, as well as people in his area, would rather not see a school being closed. But I think it’s important to stress, in this situation, that you have over a 27 percent decline in students. Those make tough decisions for a school district to make.

You know, it’s not fair to students, and it’s not fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia, to be putting money into classrooms where there are no students or where there are opportunities to make sure that students can go and have a great education. In fact, most studies have shown that when students move into other schools, their education not only stays the same, but in most areas, it increases. The opportunities are there. When you have more students in a school, you can have more programs, things like that.

[1845]

Within the specific school district 54, their budget has gone up $1.3 million while they’ve gone down 27 percent. I can appreciate that the member would rather see a school not being closed. But again, when you look at the fact that you have so few students in there…. I think that district is down to around 2,000 students in the entire district. So it is a small school district.

I just also want to highlight the fact that, as I’m sure the member is aware, as a rural school district, there are a lot of additional funds that go to rural schools that aren’t available for urban areas to help offset some of the different stresses that he was referring to.

R. Fleming: I have been advised that we can expect the bells to ring for a vote, so even getting a last question in here will be difficult. We certainly have many, many more questions here. Even without a vote, I’m afraid, as we’ve seen in this estimates, we probably don’t have time to wait for the answers.

I do just want to close, at this point in time, by thanking ministry staff, the deputy minister, all of the other folks involved in the ministry who helped to not only prepare the minister but to answer the questions that arise, the legislative clerks, the chairs of the committee and, of course, a wide range of members of the House who’ve wanted to participate in this set of estimates because schools are so important in their constituencies, in their communities, and they wanted the time to bring forward some of the concerns.

As we’ve canvassed in this set of estimates — and, again, we would have liked more time to deal with what is government’s second-biggest ministry — I think what’s been established is that school districts and the kids and parents that are connected to schools and in the communities that school districts represent are facing major financial pressures.

That’s why we’re seeing schools close in different regions around British Columbia. That’s why we’re seeing entire programs slated for elimination. That’s why we saw 1,000 parents come out in Vancouver last night, for example, wondering whether programs in that district can be saved or not or whether teachers and support staff layoffs are going to be part of the budget-making process at the local district level.

We’ve also looked at some of the central assumptions in this budget: only $50 million for public education, $25 million to be clawed back in administrative savings cuts. We’ve had the minister confirm that the downloading of a number of cost pressures, including the next-generation network, will take another $20 million out of public
[ Page 12209 ]
education. On and on and on it goes. It’s $190 million of estimated downloaded costs just since 2014, according to the B.C. Association of School Business Officials.

That is what is driving the cuts that we’re seeing in district after district in the province of British Columbia. That’s why this budget fails kids and schools in our communities.

The government has made its priorities clear in this budget. There’s a $236 million tax cut for the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia. There’s $100 million transferred from tax revenue — collected by moms and dads whose kids go to school — to start up a prosperity fund that was supposed to be generated from revenues from natural gas. It’s coming from tax dollars.

There’s lots and lots of money in government for everything, it seems, but a decent investment in public education — the kind of investment that the legislative committee on Finance has called for, for the last three years in calling for stable, adequate funding for public education.

Those thoughtful recommendations, which were based on travelling throughout the province to inform the budget-making process, once again were ignored by government. Perhaps it wasn’t ignored by the Minister of Education. Perhaps it’s the Minister of Finance who vetoes the ideas of the Legislative Assembly. But the frustrating thing is that thousands of British Columbians believe that we should have a robust committee system that should have access to being able to influence government.

They said their number one priority was public education. The budget did not reflect that in any way. We’ve tried our best to underscore some of the tenets of the budget in this process. I think there’ll be more questions later.

I would also, finally, just thank the minister for his answers to the questions that we were able to get to, and we’ll close on that note.

Hon. M. Bernier: If you wouldn’t mind, hon. Chair, I wouldn’t mind a few moments just to say thank you. I know we’re short of time. I want to thank all of my staff as well. As I think the member opposite can appreciate, there’s a lot of work that goes on within the ministry. It is the second-largest ministry in government. We have, as I mentioned yesterday, amazing and dedicated staff. I want to thank all of them for preparing me, for working with me so well as we move forward to make education the best it can be in the province of British Columbia.

[1850]

I don’t want to take away from that, necessarily, and get into another wholesome debate on education at this point. I’ll just say that I appreciate the members opposite. I think we had a good couple of full days of some very good questions, and I hope they appreciated the answers.

I also, if nothing else, want to appreciate and acknowledge the respectful dialogue that took place as we were going forward in canvassing the questions. It can be a very emotional ministry. It can be a very tough ministry when we get into the details of some of these issues. But I appreciate the fact that we can have a frank discussion as we move forward. I’ll just end with that.

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

Hon. M. Bernier: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 19 of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.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