2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 4, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

Birth of child to Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Mining industry

J. Tegart

World Press Freedom Day

J. Darcy

Social enterprises and social innovation

G. Kyllo

Kids Help Phone fundraising walk

R. Fleming

Firefighting service of Sheila Kirkwood

J. Sturdy

Adult basic education

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

Government action on earthquake preparedness

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Anton

Seismic upgrades for schools

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

Wildfire prevention and management of interface fire risks

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

Oil spill response

G. Holman

Hon. M. Polak

Access to adult basic education

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

J. Shin

Petitions

K. Corrigan

N. Macdonald

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

D. Eby

R. Fleming

J. Rice

H. Bains

K. Conroy

K. Corrigan

M. Mungall

L. Popham

J. Shin

N. Macdonald

On the main motion

Hon. P. Fassbender

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

S. Fraser

J. Rice

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Hon. C. Oakes

S. Robinson

G. Heyman

[ Page 7957 ]

MONDAY, MAY 4, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

BIRTH OF CHILD TO

DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

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

Thank you, all.

Introductions by Members

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7958 ]

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

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MINING INDUSTRY

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

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

[ Page 7959 ]

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

AND SOCIAL INNOVATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

KIDS HELP PHONE FUNDRAISING WALK

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

[1350]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7960 ]

Walk So Kids Can Talk will raise $2 million nationally.

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

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

FIREFIGHTING SERVICE

OF SHEILA KIRKWOOD

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

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

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

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

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

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

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

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

In other words, for those at home, taxpayers paid for a report that confirmed that we’d received other reports in the past that highlighted deficiencies. Here we are, months and months after receiving that report. Those

[ Page 7961 ]

deficiencies still exist. In fact, the minister is quoted to have said over the weekend that perhaps people should get together and have barbecues to talk about their own personal preparedness with their neighbours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7962 ]

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

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

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

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

[1405]

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

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

Interjections.

[ Page 7963 ]

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

Please continue.

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

WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND

MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

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

But that’s not to say that nothing has happened. As a result of the Nuka Research report which we commissioned and the two tanker safety expert panel reports,

[ Page 7964 ]

the federal government has begun to act in ways that we have not seen in generations. Probably the best example of that is recent amendments they’ve made to the Canada Shipping Act to ensure that in fact there is much greater authority and enforcement and much greater focus and ability with respect to prevention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1420]

ACCESS TO ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

We’re proud of the advanced education system we have in this province, because our goal is to make sure that individuals have the opportunities they seek to ex-

[ Page 7965 ]

pand their skills, to build their talents and to thrive in a growing economy.

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

Madame Speaker: Burnaby-Lougheed on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

Petitions

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

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

[ Page 7966 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

Now, let’s just start with the idea of compelling school districts to take

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker: I’d remind the member that we’re currently debating the amendment and not the main

[ Page 7967 ]

motion. It seems like the member’s comments seem to be more about the bill itself than the amendment to refer the bill to the committee.

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

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

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

[1440]

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

section 170 of the School Act, currently entitled “Non-disclosure of student records,” to “Student personal information.”

Where the current

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

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

This is a complicated area of law. So, for example, would we bring experts into committee — I think so — to tell us whether there needs to be a privacy impact assessment, as required by

section 69 of FIPA? The bill proposes to remove an offence if a person knowingly discloses any information contained in a student record that identifies a student or francophone student. We could bring in experts to provide testimony about why that

section was in there.

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

[ Page 7968 ]

language challenges, as we do in Vancouver?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7969 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn’t sound like this is a great new relationship for Mr. Richardson, and that is exactly what the minister promised him and the rest of the Vancouver school board trustees. They have not delivered it, and referring this matter to committee would certainly at least start the conversation about why the government is pushing this bill through in the face of so many commitments to consultation. Committee is, by definition, a consultation

[ Page 7970 ]

with experts, with community members. What better way for this government to make good on its commitments here?

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7971 ]

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

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

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

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

I think the

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7972 ]

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

Or we can go to other districts in regions of the province where there are challenging rates of unemploy-

[ Page 7973 ]

ment and communities in decline, where you have small classrooms but you have kids from, in some cases, three or four different grade levels all in the same classroom because of economic necessity and because of population scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

We have faculties of education and heads of departments who have done a lot of thinking and have tons of experience who could tell this government not only about how its investment in teacher training could be done better but how professional development, period, through the lifetime and career of a teacher could be done better. That’s what they spend their days thinking about, and

[ Page 7974 ]

they’re not allowed to share those opinions with the minister at this point. He, so far, has shown that he’s got tunnel vision on Bill 11. He wants to push it through.

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

[ Page 7975 ]

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

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

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

Facilitating delivery of shared services among school districts. What this means is to, essentially, give the minister the power to compel school districts to take

part in shared services whether that makes sense or not. In school district 52 they are already partaking in shared services, and it’s proven successful. But there’s no need to legislate that decision. It works for them, but in other school districts it may not work so well. It may be even a poor financial decision overall.

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

The fourth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 7976 ]

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

[ Page 7977 ]

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

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

The second

part is facilitating the delivery of shared services among school districts, giving the minister the power to compel school districts to take

part in shared services. Let’s take a look at the Surrey school board — the largest district in the province, over 72,000 students. They, in themselves, are a province. You put together so many students in one district…. They already are doing the work, as they talk about a co-sharing of the services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

section 11 appeals.

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear hon. Minister,

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

“That the board of education, school district 36, Surrey, ask government to immediately rescind Bill 11 and allow for a thoughtful

[ Page 7978 ]

and productive dialogue between the government and the boards of education about the challenges facing our educational system and about any legislative changes required to promote equality and a sustainable public education system.”

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

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

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

I couldn’t agree more.

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

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

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

[1600]

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

They advised everyone that since 2006 not a penny of extra capital was approved by this government for Surrey school district — not a penny. All the projects that came after 2006 were the result of capital plans that were approved prior to 2006. Then two years ago the previous Ministe