2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

Permission for Mr. Rick Hansen to address the House

Hon. C. Clark

Tributes

Rick Hansen

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Address from the Bar of the House

R. Hansen

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Lenami Godinez

Hon. T. Lake

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Rick Hansen

J. Horgan

Asian Canadians

R. Lee

Forest fire fighters

H. Lali

Joan LeMoine

R. Cantelon

Earthquake preparedness

S. Chandra Herbert

Minimum wage

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Government participation in environmental review of Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

D. Donaldson

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

Elimination of harmonized sales tax and reinstatement of sales tax system

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

J. Horgan

Privatization of medical transcription services

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — School Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

H. Bains

J. Thornthwaite

C. James

C. Trevena

J. Brar

S. Simpson

K. Corrigan

S. Hammell

B. Simpson

Hon. G. Abbott

Bill 37 — Animal Health Act

Hon. D. McRae

L. Popham

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

D. Donaldson

B. Simpson

[ Page 11337 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

PERMISSION FOR MR. RICK HANSEN

TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE

Hon. C. Clark: By leave, I move that Mr. Rick Hansen be permitted to address this assembly from the Bar of the House.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

I now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to open the doors of the chamber to invite Rick Hansen to approach the Bar of the House. [Applause.]

[1335]

Hon. Members, this is the second time in our history that Rick Hansen has been invited as a special guest. On May 30, 2007, I had the pleasure of announcing Rick's presence at the Bar of the House, and today, for the first time, it's an honour to invite Rick to address the Legislative Assembly from the Bar.

Before Rick addresses the Legislative Assembly, I would like to call on the Premier to say a few words.

Tributes

RICK HANSEN

Hon. C. Clark: It is indeed a rare honour that's been accorded to someone, to Mr. Hansen, to address us today in the Legislature — a rare honour that is not just well deserved, one that has been well earned through over 2½ decades of making Canada and making the world a better place.

It is hard to believe that it's been 2½ decades since Rick Hansen finished his 16-month, 40,000-kilometre Man in Motion Tour. It's a shining example for all of us of how the human spirit, how determination can change the lives of millions of people across Canada and all over the globe.

His Man in Motion Tour showed us that anything is possible. It's easy to forget what a difference one single person can make in the world. The problems seem daunting and sometimes frightening. But every once in a while — in Canada, in particular — we are blessed by someone who comes along who reminds us that the impossible is indeed possible and that one individual can make great change.

That individual, one of them, has joined us today in this Legislature — Rick Hansen. In his Man in Motion Tour he taught us all what was possible. Since then, as he says, the journey has only grown and continued to get better. He has shown us that we can all take

part in this journey with him, that he is not just a difference-maker on his own. He has dedicated his life to creating difference-makers all over the country and all over the world, wherever he goes.

Since he returned home in 1987, he has worked as a community leader, as an advocate and as a supporter of spinal cord research. He has fundamentally changed the way we around the world view people who live with disabilities and has changed government's response to it.

As he has said today, British Columbia is a province that people look to from all over the world to set an example for inclusiveness and forward-thinking when it comes to research and treatment of people who suffer from spinal cord injuries.

Rick's foundation originally raised $26 million in the original Man in Motion Tour 25 years ago. He has leveraged that into $252 million since then, in the last 2½ decades.

It's an incredible opportunity for us today and a great honour to have him join us as we celebrate his progress and his achievement and as we remember, as he always reminds us, that every single one of us has a big chance to make a real difference in people's lives.

On behalf of all British Columbians, on behalf of all Canadians, I'd like to extend to the son of Williams Lake a very, very big thank-you.

A. Dix: I want to join with the Premier's comments. The Premier spoke eloquently about all of the contributions in total that Rick has made to British Columbia, to our province, to our world.

I was reflecting on a couple of moments that are special and personal. I was in another job, at Columneetza School, about ten years ago. I talked to a young woman who had just raised a ton of money on a school project. Naturally, as you would in that moment, I praised her for all she had done and all she had succeeded. She said, as if it was no big thing: "You know, Rick Hansen went to school here."

I think of Norm Gagatek, who had a serious injury, a brain stem stroke, in 2008. He had difficulty swallowing for a long time. He was told he'd never walk again. And he — Norm, a firefighter from Invermere — took

part in your event, Rick, just a few months ago.

What that says to us, I think, is that we're all walking in your slipstream. It's an extraordinary thing. It's an extraordinary thing for all of us to have you here today and to recommit ourselves to your work, to our work to make the world a better place for people with spinal cord injury, of course, but for all people and to continue to work on those goals together across party lines, across community lines, across borders.

[ Page 11338 ]

[1340]

Thank you, Rick, on behalf of all British Columbians and on behalf of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Rick Hansen.

Address from the Bar of the House

R. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly, the government of British Columbia — difference-makers, all — friends, I'm here today in an expression of gratitude, with great pride to be coming here in this great hall, in this great House, to be able to tell a story of hope and inspiration, a story of a young person from Williams Lake whose hopes and dreams had been dashed, who had a spinal cord injury and who was told they would never walk again and not to have a lot of hope.

Fortunately, there were others who had another opinion. They surrounded me, encouraged me, challenged me to think about what was possible. There were role models who were in front, who had been there before, who said: "Don't give up. Keep hope and faith. Look for possibilities. Reach your full potential. You are still the same person — the athlete, the adventurer, the pioneer and someone who can make a difference."

That inspiration that embodies this province fuelled me to be able to take one baby step at a time, to be able to feel that I was now a man in motion and didn't need to be cured in order to be whole as a human being, to be a world-class athlete, to be filled with potential and possibility.

Getting to that place, feeling that sense of gratitude — it was family, friends and community, it was this great province, and it was this great country and its values and the members of this country who stepped up to make that possible.

Challenged and motivated to think about what I could do. What strengths, what insight, what journey, what things did I see that needed to be changed that didn't have to be there, just like others had before, to allow me to be in this place?

What role would I play? To wheel around the world; to apply my skills as an athlete; to bring a message of hope, of what is possible if we remove barriers that limit people with disabilities from achieving their potential, the human potential that is inside of every person with a disability, waiting to be unleashed.

Concepts, shifting of perspective, looking at new ways of seeing an individual and seeing the beauty of each individual inside, in spite of the fact they may be different. Knowing that we have much more in common than divides us. To be able to also maybe dream one day that we could find a cure for spinal cord injury so that the next generation of young people with spinal cord injury aren't told that they shouldn't have hope, and that they will walk again.

The Man in Motion World Tour was stimulated because of the amazing wellspring of support from British Columbians and the government of British Columbia — leaders who inspired me, leaders who didn't give up.

As I went around the world, I was looked up to because I was Canadian. I was looked up to because of what this country stands for — a healthy and inclusive world where hopes and dreams come true, where people care about each other. We not only have the right but the obligation to step up and make a difference.

Coming back into British Columbia, my home province, was truly one of the proudest moments of my life. Communities from the north, into the Interior, to the Kootenays and, of course, into the Lower Mainland — thousands and thousands of people lining the streets and joining me in this journey, this new beginning.

When I came to B.C. Place and we finished the end of the Man in Motion Tour, we realized that it was just the beginning. Scientists were still afraid to talk openly about a cure being possible — barriers everywhere for people with disabilities still waiting to be removed.

Thousands and thousands of champions — Members of the Legislative Assembly who stepped up and pioneered and showed the way, introducing policy, programs, funding — supporting me on my continuing journey, but all the stakeholders, the partners, the volunteers who all wanted to interpret that vision in their own way and contribute.

[1345]

This kind of support has gotten to the point where here we are, 25 years later, in a place of great pride, being able to celebrate immense progress. We need to just look across and see Stephanie Cadieux representing her constituency, having a disability but demonstrating ability. This is an incredible example of what's possible and what our province stands for.

I have a chance and a privilege to introduce to you Tyler Mosher, who is up in the stands, who is a member of our cross-Canada relay. He is walking today because of the advanced treatment and care that you have helped to stimulate and put together.

Tyler, I'd like you to stand up and be recognized by the members here. You are amazing. [Applause.]

Tyler is the hope, the example of no longer a dream but an emerging reality where in the future every newly injured person with spinal cord injury will walk away again and return to full physical function.

Stephanie and others are the reality that in the meantime, in spite of our challenges, we have the ability to live a full potential, to make a meaningful contribution, to live a life of purpose and dignity, to be respected and that every one of us, regardless of whether we have a disability or not, has the right to be in this community and to contribute.

Here we are, 25 years later, seeing the relay come back in through this province, with this medal being passed

[ Page 11339 ]

by thousands and thousands of British Columbians, nurturing and igniting the pride of this great province, each one of them with a story of what they've done to interpret the values of this province — a place where people can be healthy, a place where we can live in an inclusive society and on a healthy planet.

The fact that we can come together in spite of our differences, that we can build the province we want, that we have come a long way and we have a long way to go, and that we will not get there unless we work together.

Here I am, sitting in front of the most esteemed colleagues in the province, who have taken time, who are true difference-makers, who all really deserve to be wearing this medal. There are times when you line up on other sides of the hall and the House, but in reality, we know that this time, this moment, there is no divide. We are all unified because we all care about this province and the people who live here.

We care about making a difference, and we do it every single day. It's something to be honoured, because in conflict and in challenge it's easy to lose sight of the progress, the skills, the strengths and the things that come together and that we must work in partnership.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to say thank-you for helping to honour me, for inspiring me to believe that the end of the Man in Motion Tour was just the beginning, that after 25 years of great work and progress, a world-class centre of excellence is at the Blusson Centre, which will be the hub of a global network driving for the cure over the next 25 years.

More and more accessible communities so that we could actually be the leading-edge province and country for the world and help extend to the world for the next 25 years, to help the one billion people living with disabilities today on this planet live a full and productive life, that we can inspire the youth to make a difference, to be difference-makers in their own way. This is what you are doing. This is what I'm here to express to you — the greatest and deepest compliment that I can give from my heart.

Thank you. Thank you for believing in me. Thank you for joining me on this journey. Let's never, ever give up on our dreams. Thank you very much, everyone. I really appreciate it. [Applause.]

[1350]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It is indeed a pleasure to introduce 55 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding in Surrey-Tynehead. They're here to learn about how our provincial government works. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Grant Wirtz and Ms. Sue U-Ming, as well as over 19 parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to be here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Gregg Dow and Jackie Miller. Gregg is the president and Jackie is a director of B.C. Coastal Transportation Society. Please join me to welcome them to this House.

R. Cantelon: Joining us today in the gallery on their first visit to the Legislature are Linda and John Wicks from my constituency. They're the operators of a very fine establishment, the Black Bear Pub, which serves on Friday a beautiful fish and chips but also wonderful meals throughout the week.

Now, Linda used to work in the original Parliament Buildings in England, in Whitehall. They're both here today to observe the decorum and eloquence of the members. I'm sure we will not disappoint them in that, so please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm delighted today to welcome two guests: Graham Plant, who works with me in my office here as executive assistant; and his fiancée, Sarah Curry, who is from the Comox Valley. Will the House please welcome them both.

B. Simpson: When I was first elected here and had some hair on my head, my kids were very young then too. I was looking at a picture of them, and they looked much younger, as I did. My son, Jonathan, was 15 at the time. My daughter, Jill, was 13.

As we all know in the House, the true sacrifice is borne by our families. My son and daughter are in the chamber today visiting before my daughter heads off back east for a little while. I ask the House to please make Jonathan Simpson and Jillian Simpson welcome.

Tributes

LENAMI GODINEZ

Hon. T. Lake: It's with great sadness that I rise in the House today to speak about Lenami Godinez, whose tragic death on Saturday shocked us all. At 27, Lenami was too young. I can only imagine the unspeakable grief that her parents and family must be feeling today.

Lenami was a member of our family too. She worked in the Ministry of Environment as a

section head, regional program administrative support, in Surrey. Lenami previously worked for the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, where she was the administrative team leader for the child and youth division. I know the Minister of Justice and Attorney General joins me in expressing these condolences.

Prior to that Lenami worked for the B.C. Winter Games Secretariat, where her primary focus was community engagement in social and economic development programs. By all accounts, Lenami was well known in government and clearly a bright light. She was someone

[ Page 11340 ]

who showed a lot of promise and built some strong relationships with colleagues in the brief five months that she was with us at Environment.

In one of her first meetings with Ministry of Environment staff she was asked to prepare a list of things that described herself. I'll let her words speak for themselves. "One thing few people know about me is that British Columbia introduced me to nature. Before that my recreational activities took place in cities. I enjoy exploring, and I'm looking forward to learning how to ski this winter."

A co-worker sent me this in an e-mail today. "Lenami was all we hope to be. She made one sit up straighter, be a little gentler, and so much more. She truly exemplified the values we all cherish in a human being — kind, enthusiastic, patient, committed and courageous. She was with us for only a short time, but she was already making much progress in our office. I feel lucky to have known her."

[1355]

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone in this House sends their sincere condolences to the family of Lenami Godinez today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to join with the Minister of Environment to remember Lenami Godinez. I first met her at a food scraps drop spot. She really took her belief in the environment and supporting nature to heart.

She volunteered in her off hours, working to deal with composting, an issue that's not all that attractive but very necessary in a community as dense as the West End in Vancouver. She would work with the farmers market, with Gordon Neighbourhood House and many other volunteers in our community to ensure that people could do the right thing for the environment.

I would like to join, of course, with all members of this House in offering support to her family, offering support to her loved ones and friends and just to thank her and her example for inspiring so many. That laugh, that smile was something that I will remember. I want to thank her example, to thank her spirit for being so strong and so rich in love for so many others.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very pleased today to introduce two staff members from the Ministry of Education who are in the House. Lise Mino is a writer in our ministry correspondence office, and Britney Elder works in our information department in the area of analysis and reporting. I'd like all members of the House to please make them welcome.

B. Stewart: I can't help but notice the former MLA from the riding of Okanagan-Westside, Rick Thorpe, who's in the House today and joining us. I'd just like to welcome and congratulate Rick for coming back to this House with many of his former colleagues here.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. This bill amends the following statutes: the Election Act, the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, the Forest Act, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, the Health Professions Act, the Land Title Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Police Act, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act and the Wildfire Act.

The bill also confirms corrections to statutes made under the authority of the Statute Revision Act and makes a number of consequential housekeeping and clarifying amendments to other statutes.

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

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RICK HANSEN

J. Horgan: I was going to read about 32 countries, 40,000 kilometres, wheeling around the world to make a difference between 1985 and 1987, but I think my words, as I tried to commit them to paper, don't seem to do justice after listening to Rick Hansen speak, after seeing the presentation in the rotunda.

I've been very fortunate to have had an opportunity to work with Rick on a number of initiatives over the years,

[ Page 11341 ]

so I thought instead that I would tell a couple of stories that I think reflect more on his character and his commitment over the past 25 years.

Had he done nothing else other than wheel around the world, I think that would have been enough. You could have stopped right there. But he didn't stop right there. He continued, with an enormous amount of grace, to inspire people wherever he went. Millions and millions and millions of people inspired by the acts, daily acts — not the events, not the historic event, but the daily acts of an extraordinary British Columbian.

[1400]

I've seen the video many, many times. I imagine some of you have as well — the immortal shot of the Winnebago pulling out of the Oakridge mall and coming to the first overpass and having the entire storage unit ripped off and dropped onto the road as the Winnebago kept going. Who would have thought after that auspicious beginning that we would have been here today, 25 years later, listening to an extraordinary British Columbian tell us his story and the impact that he has had on millions and millions of British Columbians?

Another story that springs to mind was when my friend and former boss Mike Harcourt fell from his deck on Pender Island and suffered a spinal cord injury. Rick went to see him in the hospital. They became friends. I was contacted by the executive director of the Rick Hansen Foundation, and he said to me: "Good news. Mike Harcourt is coming on board." I said: "You can't put two positive people in a room like that. Don't you understand the laws of physics? That's too much optimism for one place." But nonetheless, it came out all right.

Now I'm finished with my two minutes. I've got many more stories. If anyone wants to join me after, I'll be happy to share some.

ASIAN CANADIANS

R. Lee: May is Asian Heritage Month in Canada. In honour of that, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Asian-Canadian community for all its contributions to British Columbia. Our province's diversity is something we can be proud of. The many languages, ethnicity and cultural traditions strengthen our social fabric and add to our collective identity.

The contributions of Asian Canadians have changed our economic and political landscape in many ways. As part of Asian Heritage Month, festivities will be held across the country to celebrate the various Asian cultures. In the Lower Mainland the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society is putting on its 16th annual month-long festival called explorASIAN 2012. This festival includes art exhibitions, musical concerts and dance performances that are inspired by Asian heritage. The slogan of explorASIAN is "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration."

This weekend I will be attending two explorASIAN events. First, I will attend a matinee show of The Magical Encounter , a musical and dance performance by local and visiting artists who are creatively exploring what happens when East meets West. After the show I will attend the opening ceremony of the third Generation One art exhibition at the International Arts Gallery.

As a Chinese Canadian, it gives me great pride to show my support for Asian cultures in B.C. Asian Canadians contribute greatly to the growth and prosperity of B.C. I hope we all use this opportunity to learn more about Asian Canadians' vibrant history and celebrate their contributions during Asian Heritage Month.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS

H. Lali: Imagine that you live in or own a business in rural B.C. I mean in real rural B.C. — out in the bush in remote coastal, northern, interior B.C. or in any one of our First Nations and unincorporated communities — possessing little or no firefighting capacity. What could be scarier than a wildfire raging out of control and heading towards your home or place of work? Nothing.

We are fortunate to have firefighters who put their own lives at risk in order to save ours, and our land and possessions. The Ministry of Forests wildfire management branch employs close to a thousand auxiliary members. Crew members receive extensive training each year and must be fully capable of demonstrating fire behaviour knowledge, fire management tactics, fire-line equipment use, fire-line organization, communications, air operations and orienteering.

All crew members must also meet the national physical requirements. Nearly 200 would-be firefighters are currently at a week-long ministry boot camp in Chilliwack learning how to safely suppress a raging wildfire. Only 135 to 150 will be hired. Their training started two days ago at the RCMP Pacific region training centre on the former military base.

Every year nearly half of B.C.'s wildfires are caused by people and the rest by lightning. B.C. averages 134 entirely preventable fire starts a year due to campfires, costing more than $2.2 million annually. Over the past ten years 2,000 fires per year were reported, costing $145 million annually.

The ministry has regulations in place in order to curb and prevent wildfires — including tips to burn debris on one's property, to build a responsible campfire and to plan landscaping around homes to limit the impact of wildfires — as well as penalties and fines for breaking the law.

[1405]

We are indeed thankful for our brave firefighters who risk their own safety to protect us and the environment we live in. We are thankful for the new recruits at Chilliwack's boot camp.

[ Page 11342 ]

JOAN LEMOINE

R. Cantelon: When the Parksville Chamber of Commerce was considering individuals for their outstanding contributions to the community for their annual awards, one name stood out that didn't fit into any of the categories — Joan LeMoine. She seemed to be everywhere and doing everything.

As Rudi Widdershoven, the president of the chamber, put it, they needed a special award for someone who goes above and beyond, year after year. Rudi went on to say that if the chamber or some other community group identified a particular need, something that needed to be done in the community, they would ask Joan. The answer was always: "Sure, I can do that."

Joan retired in Parksville in 1995, and like so many seniors in Parksville, she got involved in the community to help others. Joan started by volunteering at the Society of Organized Services in the thrift shop. Then she began working in the office, was elected to the board and became president of the board. She became a key part of the expansion of the thrift store.

Joan served two years on the chamber of commerce. She volunteered at the Legion. She's worked year after year on Canada Day celebrations. Together with her late husband, Jim, they were part of a core group that restarted the Beach Festival in Parksville after a three-year hiatus.

Then lately, last year, Joan signed up for fundraising efforts at the Cops for Cancer. Now for some of us, getting your head shaved is no great notable sacrifice. For many in the chamber it would hardly be noticed, as pointed out earlier by one of the members opposite.

An Hon. Member: I resemble that remark.

R. Cantelon: Yes.

Well, not so much for Joan. But she went out and raised $4,500 and got shaved clean and smooth.

There are three kinds of people in this world: those who watch it happen, those who wonder what happened and those who make it happen. Let's celebrate Joan LeMoine for all that she does in making it happen in Parksville.

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it happens every time. An earthquake hits, and the airwaves fill with instructions on what to do. A small number of us go out and get our earthquake kits, talk to families, develop plans at work and home. But many, including, dare I say, some in this House, will nod wisely that that is a good thing to do but put it off and forget.

We can't forget. As Jerry Thompson writes in the Cascadia's Fault , a book I'd recommend: "Imagine five major cities — Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Portland and Sacramento — with dozens of smaller towns and villages in between, slammed all at once by the same earthquake, with tsunami wave damage across the entire Pacific Rim. Disaster on a scale so overwhelming that nothing in our history can serve as a reference point."

It's pretty staggering stuff. This building we are in today would probably collapse. St. Paul's Hospital in my community, as well, is threatened. Many others all across B.C. also are in that boat.

I worry that we are sleepwalking towards a disaster. We have a 30 percent chance that a big one will hit us in B.C. in the next 50 years. As legislators we have a duty to think long term, yet sometimes the election cycle is only as far as we do think.

Tougher building codes, trained citizens, stronger emergency infrastructure, improving our urban search and rescue team — not cutting it, as the federal government has recently decided to do — and improving our buildings both old and new are all crucial. As I learned in Scouts, always be prepared. An earthquake will hit us here in B.C. Are you prepared?

MINIMUM WAGE

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak about B.C.'s latest minimum wage increase. Effective today, the general minimum wage in B.C. is $10.25 per hour. That means British Columbia now has the second-highest minimum wage in the country, something our government is very proud of.

Today's increase provides more support for workers and families in every region of the province. It means that full-time workers who were making the $8-an-hour minimum wage last year will put an extra $4,000 in their pockets, and that's good news for families across British Columbia.

Today's increase is the third to the minimum wage over the past year and follows on our Premier's commitment in March 2011 to increase the minimum wage in stages. We heard from both the labour community and the business community that government needs to take action on minimum wage, and we listened.

[1410]

Our government understood we needed a balanced approach to this policy. We listened to the employers across the province. We ensured they had lots of time and notice, staging the increases in small increments over the past year.

Raising the minimum wage in stages to $10.25 an hour benefits workers, while putting less stress on employers. That's good news for businesses and our economy. This balanced approach helps us ensure British Columbia remains a wonderful place to live in, to work in and to invest in. That's good news for all British Columbians.

Going forward, our government will consider further changes in the future, using a balanced approach, and

[ Page 11343 ]

we will continue to welcome ideas from workers and employers on how best to address minimum-wage adjustments.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier and her government support the moratorium and exclusion zone on oil tanker traffic on the north coast?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member knows, there are many pipelines through British Columbia, and there are also many ships that transport oil along the coast of British Columbia. That is not new, and as far as I know, it hasn't changed.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The moratorium dates to 1972. That was a Liberal government. The exclusion zone dates to 1988. That was a Conservative government.

I know that the Premier doesn't want to take a position on this, but it might be time to get around to it. The province of Alberta, the Ministry of Transportation in Alberta, the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of Justice, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada have all registered as government participants in the joint review process, but not British Columbia.

Now, it seems to me the Premier might explain why it is that British Columbia has not decided to be a full government participant in the joint review process on the Enbridge pipeline.

Hon. C. Clark: The value in these debates is that the Leader of the Opposition may learn that it is not a moratorium, although he continually refers to it that way. It's a voluntary exclusion zone that exists off our coast. I think that's the value of having these debates.

I think, though, that the real question that British Columbians need to be asking is: why is it the Leader of the Opposition feels he already knows everything about the outcome of these hearings? He might as well assume that there should be no hearings whatsoever. He knows his answer. He has prejudged the outcome.

Well, the government of British Columbia has a greater responsibility than that. We need to understand completely the risks to our province and also, potentially, the benefits to our province. We don't know the outcome of the answer to either of those questions.

As much as the Leader of the Opposition would like to prejudge it, as much as he'd like to play politics with it, it's a more important issue for British Columbia and for Canada than that, and we aren't going to play it that way.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the government of Alberta is participating in this process. They're providing evidence in the process. They're full government participants in the process. It's the government of British Columbia that has been absent without leave.

The reality in British Columbia is that people who live on the coast know there's a moratorium, even if the Premier doesn't. People who live on the coast know there's an exclusion zone, and they support it, as do I.

The question to the Premier is simple. Why isn't the government participating fully in a process that matters so much to the environment and economy of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course the process matters to British Columbia. It matters more to British Columbia than to any other province in this country. In British Columbia we will be getting a small amount of the benefit, as it stands, and taking the largest piece of the risk. Of course it matters to British Columbia. This process matters a lot.

[1415]

In fact it matters so much that it's irresponsible to prejudge its outcome. It matters so much that it's irresponsible to get out there and decide you know what all the answers are before any of the experts have had a chance to present their evidence.

We have an obligation, as MLAs and as leaders in this province, to ensure that we are listening to British Columbians. We have an obligation, as a government that has a responsibility to look after the best interests of our province, to make sure that we understand the evidence and that we weigh it appropriately. That's what people elect governments to do.

They may elect the opposition to get out there and play politics and prejudge the process, but that is not what they elect governments for. They elect governments to make sure that we are looking after their best interests, and the way to do that is to make sure that we give this process a fair hearing and that we make a decision in the best interests of British Columbians, based on the information we see come out of it.

R. Fleming: Well, based on what the Premier has just said, the question for her is: if it matters so much to this government, why is it that the Alberta government is registered as a government in the National Energy Board hearings and B.C. has relegated itself to intervener status?

[ Page 11344 ]

The fact is there has been a moratorium in place off B.C.'s north coast since 1972 — 40 years, nine Premiers, eight Prime Ministers. We have a tanker exclusion zone with the United States, which was created in 1988 to keep bulk oil tankers from Alaska away from our pristine shores and away from the Great Bear rain forest. Partly thanks to these measures, B.C. has never suffered the fate that Alaska did with the Exxon Valdez disaster 25 years ago. These prohibitions on tanker traffic have served us well.

My question is to the Premier: does she favour maintaining the north coast oil tanker moratorium and the tanker exclusion zone on behalf of British Columbians, and will she make that position known to the National Energy Board?

Hon. T. Lake: The opposition just simply makes it up as they go along. There is no moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the coast. There is a voluntary exclusion zone 50 nautical miles out. That is well recognized.

If the member opposite wants to know why we elected to have intervener status in this process, perhaps he should ask his colleague, the member for Stikine, who during estimates debates, May 18, 2011, said: "Would the minister commit today that he will have the province apply to become an intervener status so that we can have our good public servants with their good knowledge of the B.C. land base…inform this process…?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Environment Minister and the Premier should know that the moratorium on the north coast includes the Dixon Entrance. It includes the Hecate Strait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: This is an area identified by Transport Canada and other agencies as posing extreme navigational risks, especially for large vessels in these waters. The marine ecosystems here in this part of British Columbia would be extremely vulnerable to large spills because they could not easily be contained.

This project, which is before the National Energy Board hearings, would see 225 supertankers per year loaded up with raw bitumen, the size and scale of which we have never seen on the north coast. The Premier ought to know that that is exactly what's at stake here in British Columbia today. So I say to the Premier that for heaven's sake, B.C.'s north coast is not the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is not an engineered sea lane.

[1420]

Will the Premier, in this House, clarify her confusing comments that she said outside of this place and tell us if she stands for or against the oil tanker moratorium and the tanker exclusion zone that governs B.C.'s north coast today?

Hon. T. Lake: On this side of the House we believe in making decisions and taking positions based on information, not speculation. On that side of the House information is irrelevant. That side of the House opposes a project before the process is even partly done.

This is what they say: "We have listened to the concerns and diverse perspectives of constituents throughout the province, and we have met with stakeholders and experts about the project." That's what they use for decision-making. That's the NDP environmental assessment process. They could save a ton of money. They don't need an environmental assessment process. They simply make up their minds before any information comes forward.

On this side of the House we make decisions based on evidence and information and look after the interests of British Columbians, based on that information.

D. Donaldson: I hear from my northwest constituents about this Enbridge issue every day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Every day I hear from constituents on this issue. It's real for them. It's a huge concern for them. First Nations have said they are opposed to the Enbridge pipeline. In my constituency, the Wet'suwet'en have talked about how this project would destroy their culture and their livelihood. Their submission to the joint review panel states: "Considering the magnitude of cumulative environmental effects on Wet'suwet'en territory and the lack of recovery plans or strategies to address those effects…the Wet'suwet'en and the Office of the Wet'suwet'en protests and rejects the northern gateway concept."

To the Premier, in the face of broad-based opposition, including 130 First Nations, why will she not take a stand opposing the northern gateway project?

Hon. T. Lake: May 18, 2011: "Would the minister commit today that he will have the province apply to become an intervener status" — the words of the member for Stikine — "so that with their good knowledge of the B.C. land base we can actually inform this process on behalf of B.C. citizens?" What has changed in a year, other than the politics of this proposal?

[ Page 11345 ]

We have two potential pipeline projects out there. On this one the members opposite seem to have made up their mind; on another one the Leader of the Opposition is taking a wait-and-see attitude.

Well, apparently, the mayor of Vancouver is opposed to the other pipeline project. The Tsleil-Waututh are opposed to it. Why is the Leader of the Opposition taking a wait-and-see attitude? Why not allow politics to let him make up his mind today?

On this side of the House, we will use the process. We will gather information. We will make decisions based on evidence, because that's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The Premier of Alberta is standing up for her province. She's made her point. No one on this project…. The Premier of Ontario, likewise. The leaders of the coastal First Nations have stood up and, serving their people, make their views known. But our Premier, the Premier of B.C., refuses to stand up for the people of the province on this issue.

I also hear regularly from small businesses in my constituency who have major concerns about the potential impact of this project on our local economy. People like Smithers small business owner Ali Howard, who says: "The human cost, the cultural cost and the environmental costs are just too high." Or Bulkley Valley veterinarian Mike Desharnais saying, commenting on certain ecological disaster: "There will be a total collapse of this community and the entire northwest region. The damage would be irreversible, and life as we know it today in this beautiful part of the world would be changed forever."

[1425]

Again, to the Premier, when will she take a stand in support of small business owners and local economies and oppose the northern gateway project?

Hon. T. Lake: The appropriate time to take decisions, to take a stand, is when you have information — not making decisions based on politics.

This is the sum total of the NDP's environmental assessment process: "After consideration we have concluded that the environmental, economic and social risks associated with the northern gateway plan simply outweigh the benefits." That is their thorough, rigorous, robust environmental assessment process.

All I can hope is that the people of British Columbia never have to depend on that process from those members on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: Yesterday the government posted a request for proposals to privatize the liquor distribution system in B.C. The proposal will establish a private monopoly, a monopoly that will be able to set its own prices with minimal government oversight. It's a proposal that keeps information and documents away from everybody but bidders so those who have concern have little access to information or transparency.

In February this minister told the House that consumers would be protected. The reality is this proposal will lead to higher prices for consumers, likely less money for government programs while a private monopoly does very well.

Can the minister tell us why consumers should not be worried about higher prices and getting gouged by this Liberal scheme?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually had to answer these questions on NL Radio earlier when I had to tell the radio station that the member opposite completely misled the public in what he said on radio, because the fact….

Mr. Speaker: Minister….

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, Mr. Speaker, what he did is he told the public of British Columbia that prices were going to go up when they're not going to go up because….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, you have to withdraw part of your last comments.

Hon. R. Coleman: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I will not refer to the member by "you," as you have advised me in the past.

Mr. Speaker: No, Member….

Hon. R. Coleman: Or misled, Mr. Speaker — okay?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker. It's irresponsible for a member of this House to go out and tell the consumers of British Columbia that prices are going up when that is not correct.

The fact of the matter is this is about warehouse and distribution. It is not about pricing. Prices are being retained by the province of British Columbia. The price of liquor and collecting the revenue for the province of

[ Page 11346 ]

British Columbia is in the hands of the province and not in the hands of the distributor.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The only person who believes that is the minister. Everybody else who reads this RFP sees it for what it is.

Not only will this increase prices, not only will it reduce revenues potentially, but it is a setup if I ever saw one. The proposal to privatize our liquor system eliminates the opportunity for joint ventures to bid. It eliminates the opportunity for beverage manufacturers or retailers to bid. The minister has created a situation where only a handful of suitors have the opportunity to do this. People like Patrick Kinsella and his client Exel Logistics — that's who.

[1430]

Cynical observers might say the fix is in on this one. Why did the minister structure this proposal to eliminate these potential bidders and shorten the list of eligible participants?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would be tempted to use the word "mendacity" or "mendacious" with regards to those comments, but both myself and the other House Leader know exactly what that means when he used the words last week in debate with me.

The fact of the matter is this. The member across the House is making accusations that are not correct. We have an RFP on the market. It is for the warehousing and distribution. We have worked with our union with regards to it. There's succession in place with it and agreements as to how we're going to accomplish that. There are lots of people that are looking at this. The member would like to have people think that there are only one or two people that are capable of looking at this opportunity.

We think it's the right thing to do. It will save government millions of dollars in not having to build a new warehouse, millions of dollars with regards to how we can manage liquor in the province of British Columbia. We will protect the pricing and the taxation and the revenue to government, because that will stay in the hands of government.

M. Karagianis: Well, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Kinsella's client Exel gets this contract in the end. Maybe the government will have to eat their words. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? It's only reasonable that the creation of this monopoly has left consumers wondering what it means for liquor prices across the British Columbia government.

The government has not been clear on how they plan to work with the private monopoly, and it will be a private monopoly. How is the government planning to establish and set pricing for their services? The government has offered a very vague review every couple of years, but it's still not clear what the content of that review will be or what it's based on.

Can the minister explain to British Columbians how the B.C. Liberals are going to ensure that consumers will not be hit with higher prices by a private monopoly?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing I'd say to the member opposite is go check the lobbyist registration and find out that the person you're saying is actually a lobbyist for companies is no longer listed as a lobbyist for a company with regards to this file. Go do your research before you accuse people with regards to it.

Now, with regards to the rest of this, the members opposite should go read the RFP. It's for distribution and warehousing of liquor in the province of British Columbia. It's being done in conjunction with negotiations with BCGEU. It has successorship attached to it.

It is actually an opportunity for us to save ourselves from having to build a multi-million-dollar warehouse and get the same service or better for British Columbians while at the same time maintaining in government the pricing and the taxation of liquor in the province of British Columbia to protect the taxpayers, to raise the revenues that come out of liquor for things like health care, education and social programs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister might want to catch up with the times. The BCGEU has come out in direct opposition to this privatization scheme by government. Certainly, they have moved to protect their workers, and well they should.

Let's be honest. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal to suggest that prices will come down for consumers, and certainly there is nothing to assure us that the government will continue to receive the revenue that they have through this private monopoly. To sell it to British Columbians as something that's going to provide revenue for any kind of services, I think, is disingenuous, hon. Speaker.

At the end of the day, the government and this private monopoly will certainly take their fair share along the way, and that leaves only one place for profit to be taken, and that will be through the consumer pricing.

Can the minister explain how this proposal will create higher prices for consumers and what level of involvement the government will have in establishing appropriate pricing to protect consumers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The lack of understanding and research done by the NDP on this file is stunning to me. The member stands up and complains and worries about a private sector monopoly, when obviously the members

[ Page 11347 ]

opposite don't know how liquor is distributed in the province of British Columbia today.

[1435]

Wineries in British Columbia can distribute directly to liquor stores and restaurants across B.C., and they don't have to go through the Liquor Distribution Branch. All domestic beer goes through the brewers distribution system and not through the LDB.

The stunning thing is…. Get your facts straight first of all, and then go read the RFP and find out it's warehousing and distribution. It's not pricing, and it's not taxation. That will stay with the LDB as we go and continue to have a private sector and a public sector retail marketplace which has been agreed to, as we go forward.

I don't know why the members opposite think we need to be in the distribution business. I think we can find efficiencies here with a private sector partner that will save us thousands of dollars for customers in British Columbia. In actual fact, we'll try and price the liquor so that we have a benefit to British Columbians — not like the NDP, when the last time they ran for election they wanted to raise the price of beer in British Columbia.

ELIMINATION OF HARMONIZED

SALES TAX AND REINSTATEMENT

OF SALES TAX SYSTEM

B. Ralston: In order to implement the result of the referendum on the HST, announced last August, the Referendum Act directs government to consider "introducing legislation in the Legislative Assembly during its first session after the results of such a referendum are known." The current legislative session began on October 2, seven months ago.

My question is to the Premier. Will she respect the Referendum Act and the voters of B.C. and table legislation so that it can be both debated and voted upon before the House rises on May 31?

Hon. K. Falcon: As we discussed in the House the other day and the critic acknowledged, it is a Herculean task to get all of the legislation drafted and prepared to be presented in this House. I can tell the member in all candour that the drafting lawyers are working on this bill as their number one priority. It is consuming an enormous amount of time and effort, as the member can imagine.

It is the commitment of this Minister of Finance, this Premier and this House to ensure that it gets introduced in the House as soon as we can responsibly do so. As I said during an earlier debate that we were having in the House, it is a big challenge. I've acknowledged that from the outset, and we intend to get it in as quickly as we responsibly can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Following the announcement of the referendum results, the Premier in an official statement said: "Let me be clear about one thing. We will return to the PST with the exemptions that existed prior to the HST. That is what people voted for, and that is what's going to happen. I've directed the Minister of Finance to act without delay to move back to the PST."

To the Minister of Finance: will you follow the Premier's commitment to return to the PST with the exemptions that existed prior to the HST, or is bitter dissent inside the Liberal caucus preventing this legislation from moving forward in a timely way?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, apparently we've reached the very bottom of the question period barrel, and now we're just making up issues to ask.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said in this House earlier even prior to question period, and as I've said to anyone who will ask me, we intend to introduce that legislation as quickly as we responsibly can — cautioning, however, that this is a massive legislative effort. We have everyone working on it full-time. It is the major priority of government to get that done, and we intend to introduce that.

The only caution, as I said earlier to the member opposite, who's the critic…. I was very candid in pointing out that the challenge is going to be how quickly we can get it in, but I can assure the member that the moment that legislation is finished and completed drafting and we can have the ability to introduce it in the House, I will stand here and introduce it in this House.

J. Horgan: I don't think I need to read the quote back from the Premier. She was quite specific. She said that the PST would be returned with the exemptions as they were before they were extinguished.

[1440]

The question for the Finance Minister is a valid one and, I think, appropriate for the minister to answer clearly and succinctly. Will the PST be returning with the exact same exemptions that existed prior to its extinguishment?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said in the past, that's exactly what we will be doing, and as I've indicated to the members, also in the past, we intend to update the 1948 legislation to make sure it's certainly consistent with the 21st century. I don't believe the member would have any objection to that.

I know how excited they are to see the legislation, and the moment it is introduced, I can assure the member they will have every opportunity to participate in the

[ Page 11348 ]

discussion as we follow the direction of the referendum, as we committed to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PRIVATIZATION OF

MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

M. Farnworth: Here I thought that the Finance Minister was going to run out the clock.

The government's health authorities in the Lower Mainland are moving ahead with further privatization of transcription services. These staff transcribe doctors' dictation of surgical procedures, consultations, patient histories, test results and various other reports.

After limited privatization of the service, costs have gone up by more than 150 percent. Does the Minister of Health really believe that more than doubling the cost of transcription services is such a success that it needs to be duplicated on a larger scale?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, but I think the improvements in service, where transcriptions that were taking 14 days are now taking three days, is a heck of an improvement. I think that providing an enhanced quality of service so that family physicians are in a timely way getting reports of their patients once they are hospitalized is actually another tremendous improvement.

Rest assured that the health authorities, in this consolidation effort, are continuing to work with our partners and continuing to work with the union. We'll want to be guided, and will be guided, by one overall objective, and that is to ensure that we are getting the best value for money for taxpayers in British Columbia and that we are continuing to provide improved transcriptionist service to the benefit of the patients and the doctors and the clinicians that rely on that transcription service.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll start out this afternoon with Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act, 2012, in second reading; then we would go to second reading of the Animal Health Act, Bill 37; then to second reading of Bill 38, intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act; then to second reading of Bill 39, intituled the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act. I doubt that we'll get to the last two, but Bill 40 and Bill 14 would also be up for second reading, should that be necessary.

In the estimates this afternoon in the little House, we will start with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Should that complete, we would move to another ministry, probably the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

H. Bains: Once again it is a pleasure to stand up and speak on an issue that is very, very important. Actually, it touches the very basics of who we are as a society. We are talking about the education system in our province. I think that the School Amendment Act, Bill 36, is something that….

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, Member.

You're standing on a point of order, Vernon-Monashee.

E. Foster: It's my understanding that we were the next speaker to this bill, and our member stood up and was not recognized.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

H. Bains: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that along with the health care bill that we talked about yesterday, this bill here touches on an area that actually has a profound effect on who we are as a society, who we are as a country and who we are as a province. Also, education is one area, as you know, that plays a major role in our enhancement as individuals, as a society and as a province.

The contents of this bill perhaps has some issues that I would like to touch on. As many of the speakers have spoken before me from our side, the question arises: is this bill just to save money at the cost of the education of our children? I think saving money — being efficient, being prudent with taxpayer dollars — is always a good thing. We always need to find efficiencies.

But in this particular case the education of our children must come first. You cannot treat education as a business. It will be how we actually grow up and develop into whoever we are as a society — through a good education system.

Those are the questions that are brought by many of the experts. Is it only to save money and then somehow compromise the education of our children? If that's the case, then we shouldn't go there. We shouldn't go there, then. But if it is somehow to improve the education of our children, in-class improvement of their learning, and if it is going to build a structure that our children will benefit from, and grow up as adults who would be

[ Page 11349 ]

competing with the rest of the world, competing with the best in the world…. I think there are some question marks on that here.

There are so many experts who stood up and took notice and raised their voices accordingly, and I want to thank them for that. I was looking at my own constituency and my own city to see what my school board and our teachers had to say about this. Laurae McNally, the chair of school district 36, had this to say. She said: "It's not new," and that they always have been allowed to propose the concept as long as they consulted parents and staff. She said the only difference now is that districts don't have to get ministry approval to do so.

[1450]

I must bring to this House the concerns of my constituency in how this bill, Bill 36, will affect the children in that city, in my constituency, and how it will affect school district 36. Laurae McNally went on to say this: "In fact, Surrey floated the idea two years ago, inviting public input on shortening summer vacation and instead spreading school breaks throughout the year. But the conversation was short-lived. The idea received such an overwhelmingly negative response that the school district abandoned the idea almost immediately."

This is what she went on to say: "The parents opposed to the so-called balanced calendar were concerned about high school kids being unable to get summer jobs, the impact on family vacations and uncomfortable classroom temperatures in summer."

"The lineup was pretty long for people who weren't interested," said the chair in 2010. She touched on a number of the areas that this bill will affect in school district 36. She talked about high school students not being able to get summer jobs.

I represent a working-class community, and many of the parents…. Both parents are working, and they are feeling that they're working harder and longer. But thanks to the tax-shift policies of this government for the last ten years, they feel that their resources are stretched out. They are working harder and working longer, but they are falling behind.

The concern that was shown by these parents at that particular time, in 2010, was one of those reasons — that the students, in summertime…. Not only that they go and earn a few bucks, which comes in handy when they go for post-secondary education or to pay for themselves during the high school years — the extra money that they may need to buy a bike or go and enjoy other things in life — but also, if you think about how difficult it is for our children today to enter into post-secondary education….

Many of these students, through summer jobs, save up some dollars that help towards their skyrocketing college and university fees. That helps pay those fees. But if they're not able to work during summer days, then they will not be able to help their parents, help themselves.

With the situation as bad as it is, the students are coming out with undergraduate degrees with an average $27,000 debt load. This will make it even more difficult for them to enter post-secondary education. Or at least, it'll burden them more when it comes to the debt load that the students have to incur. That was one of the concerns that the parents showed.

The other concern that Laurae McNally, my friend from Surrey school board, mentioned is that the parents will not be able to take vacations together. As was mentioned before, different school districts may have different schedules. There are many couples who work in different…. They're teachers, but they are employed in different districts. One may have time off at a different time than the other, their partner. That creates a huge difficulty for them to manage their lives.

Then the chair of school district 36 also talked about the uncomfortable classroom temperatures in summer. In Surrey it's a different and quite unique situation right now that we face. It's quite unique and different than the rest of the districts out there.

We have something like 275 portables in Surrey school district. Over 7,000 students are forced to be educated in those portables. She talked about uncomfortable classroom temperatures, and you are not kidding. In summertime it's too hot.

[1455]

If they are forced to get their education through these year-round classrooms, then that's exactly what the situation's going to be. They will be forced into uncomfortable temperatures in those portables.

The chair of Surrey school district 36 went on to say this. She said that we have other issues. She said that we have bigger fish to fry. She didn't want to go through what is being proposed this year. "We have bigger fish to fry, and that is getting more capital money so we can build more schools." That's the issue in Surrey.

We have an ad hoc committee made up of parents, students, teachers, Surrey Board of Trade and other community activists. They have been pushing this government to give them capital to build more schools. Their capital plan talked about something like $273 million to build the schools that are needed so that we can have those children who are forced into uncomfortable conditions in portable classrooms — that we could give them real classrooms for good in-class learning.

That's what we need. Will this bill help us deal with that situation? It does not, Madam Speaker. That is a huge issue for my community, my city, and instead of dealing with that very serious issue, the minister came to Surrey and gave us a portion of what was needed to build those schools. Instead of the $273 million they needed, I think the minister's announcement was something like $120 million. It's something. Something is better than nothing. Finally they paid attention and gave us a little bit of help. Well, we need more.

That's where we need this minister's support — so that

[ Page 11350 ]

we can have real classrooms. Parents right now are wondering whether their children who are entering the classroom today or entering our school system today will ever see a real classroom. Because with the money that has been announced, even if we start building those schools today, it's going to take four or five years to complete those schools. And more money is needed to build new schools, and that money hasn't even been announced.

That's one issue, a serious issue. Also, we need to look at it when we are talking about how it impacts different communities. Surrey is probably the most diverse community than anywhere else if you look around in the Lower Mainland, if not in Canada — different parents, different communities, parents of different backgrounds. They take vacations at different times, and it may help them, in some ways. But again, who knows what is their time and when they actually need that time so that they can take their children to the country of their origin or their birthplaces.

For example, South Asians — many of them travel to India during wintertime. And right now the system that we have today does not work for them in most cases, because it's very difficult to take small children to India when the temperatures are hovering around 40, 45, 47 degrees. They would enjoy having some time during the wintertime. So there are some balances. You need to look at the needs of all communities to make sure that we're dealing with the diversity that exists in many of those communities, and I hope that the minister will be able to answer some of those questions during the next days of the debate.

Also, I want to talk about the distributed learning. I want to talk about that issue. It is quite a serious issue that we want to talk about, and there are many concerns in that particular area. Currently, grades 10 to 11 have that opportunity, and they could go on line and get the distributed-learning option if they choose to. But now this bill will be expanding it to K to 9 as well.

[1500]

But the issue is this. When this side of the House put in a freedom of information asking some questions, trying to get some data on the completion rates for distributed learning as it exists today…. It's not coming. That just shows you that there may be very serious questions about distributed learning as it exists today, never mind expanding it. Those are the questions that we will also be asking when we move into the next stage of the debate.

Well, here's school district 44. This is their report talking about distributed learning and the issues that they went through. They said: "A brief look at the success rates of self-directed on-line learning with inadequate instructional time and teacher support shows that these programs are dismal failures. Even with supports, distributed-learning completion rates are much lower than in a brick-and-mortar school." That's what the report says — dismal failure. I think that's something we cannot forget.

There are some districts that experimented with it. What are they going through as far as their success rate or completion rate is concerned? Here's one teacher that actually is involved with distributed learning. He says:

"As a longtime DL teacher, I can tell you that the hype and snake oil associated with DL is staggering. A lot of people have been attaching their wagon to this gravy train, and they are willing to say anything to support the magical virtues of DL. What is DL good for?

"It's great for well-connected, computer-savvy, self-motivated students who can't fit into a regular school timetable. There is a small group that fits this picture, and for these students DL is great. But let's be honest. This describes only a small minority of potential learners.

"For the rest, DL is a very difficult way to learn. Personally, I don't think I would want to be a DL student. You are following your own plan. This is very flexible, but it's a lonely way to learn, however. If you force a student to learn in a synchronous manner, few teens and adults want those restrictions.

"So here's the thing. DL is not the solution to crowded classrooms. If you do it right, which is rare, it is basically as expensive as regular education."

Those are some of the comments coming from a teacher who is involved with distributed learning.

He went on to say:

"Unfortunately, most on-line classrooms are merely paper correspondence courses with an e-mail address and a link page. The teacher often has regular classroom responsibilities and might have 300 to 500 on-line students. At this point the teacher is merely an overworked marker. It might help the school district's bottom line but not the educational needs of students."

That's exactly what I started my conversation with. Is it to only look at the bottom line, or is it to improve the in-class learning? That's what has to be the bottom line — the learning of our students and how we are helping them.

Here's another quote that I want to use from the media about the year-round classroom. "Dr. Charles Ungerleider said he's not impressed with the year-round school idea, arguing there are many no-cost ways for teachers to deal with summer learning loss. The UBC professor of education and sociology accuses" — he named the minister — "the Minister of Education of taking every opportunity to provoke the BCTF and its members." Here's a quote from a professor at UBC.

[1505]

I think those are some of the questions. I know the Minister of Education is someone that would want to make sure that…. He wants to leave a legacy for an education system. He would like to see, for years to come, the parents and the students looking back and saying: "Perhaps he did the right thing." I think that's the position that the minister wants to be in. That's where he wants to get to. I would be happy to see if that's the case.

I hope the minister will get that kind of credit, if the outcome of this bill provides us with that approach. But there are some serious doubts, and I think the minister will, hopefully, answer some of those issues as we go along in the next level of debate on this.

The other part here that I want to touch on is the International Baccalaureate program. Again, here's an

[ Page 11351 ]

issue.

I come from a background where education is seen to be and it's felt as a privilege for a privileged few. I remember growing up. My dad, who is no longer with us, was a middle-class working person. He would always say to us four brothers: "Look. The small piece of land that I have came through ancestral transitions. I'm prepared to sell that land for you to get an education. Even if you want to go overseas to get your education, I will be prepared to sell my house, sell my farm, so that you get the education." He had a passion, and he knew those were the days where education was considered to be only available to those who had means to educate their children.

When I see what's going on in the rest of the world, when the inequity is growing between those who have it and those who do not, I feel very strongly that education is one criteria that brings about equality. I think that it's the one thing, the one area, the one denominator, the one process through which you can actually bring equality, if you do it right.

I think we have done it right for the last 150 years. That's why the inequality isn't as large as in some of those countries. Whether you're a CEO of the Royal Bank or a janitor working for the same bank, if their children get the same opportunity for education, whether it's K-to-12 or post-secondary education, chances are that at the end of their education years both of them will be earning almost the same amount of wages. At least, they will be in place to do that.

That's how you build a society that is based on equality. Economic equality is created through that. Education is the best equalizer, in my view, when it comes to bringing about equality and removing inequality that is growing in this province for the last ten or 15 years.

Through the IB program…. What we are saying here is that for those who can afford to pay that fee, their children can be in that program. Those who cannot afford it — which is most of the parents in my constituency, in my city — will not have the opportunity to move into this program.

I think that we are putting a structure in place where those with means can have their education, the kind of education they want, but those who do not will be forced to get the education that's perhaps less than what those people with means can send their children to.

I think that creates a problem there. That's why I say that is not the right thing to do. Again, we have some questions that we will be asking. Why is it that this minister is going that route? And what is the purpose behind this?

[1510]

The other thing I want to talk about is this. Bill 36, subsection 168.02(1)(h). This 168.02 talks about "Minister's regulations — school calendars." It goes on about the different powers that the minister will have or what the minister may or may not do.

Here is what one of the clauses, (1)(

h) says: "

(1) The minister may…(

h) designating one or more non-instructional days or non-instructional periods, if any, scheduled by a board to be used for a specific purpose."

There are some serious issues coming out of this clause. To me, if I were just reading it, if I was a teacher reading this, I think what it means or can be read as — unless the minister, who's going to answer some questions during the next stage of our debate…. Are we talking here now under this clause that the minister has the powers to designate how pro-D days are used?

That is part of a collective agreement, that they have those pro-D days. If the minister is going to decide how those pro-D days are used, that means we are again moving towards gutting that collective agreement. It seems to me, if that's the case — I will be waiting for the minister's answers to that — it just shows that the government has not learned a thing from the court case that went to the Supreme Court, where they ended up paying tens of millions of dollars by the court finding that what this government did was illegal.

Again, the UBC professor, if that's what it means in this clause (h), said this. He said that the minister is taking every opportunity to provoke the BCTF and its members.

How does that work in working this 168.02(1)(h)? This is what it says. "The minister may make regulations respecting school calendars for the purposes of Division 2.1 of

Part 6, including, without limitation, regulations as follows…(

h) designating one or more non-instructional days or non-instructional periods, if any, scheduled by a board to be used for a specific purpose."

The minister will decide if there are non-instructional periods or days. If that is part of the collective agreement, is the minister going to mess around again with the collective agreement? If that's the case, the minister has learned nothing and the government has learned nothing, despite the fact that the Supreme Court told them very, very clearly that they were illegal in doing what they did with Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29.

Those are some of the serious issues. I know that the hon. Speaker is pointing to the light, as my time is coming up. I think those are some of the issues that I want to talk about.

There are some serious issues coming out of Surrey school district 36. The chair of the school board said that we have bigger fish to fry. This is not a serious issue for us. We tried this. The parents were opposed to this, all stakeholders were against it, and they dropped the idea before it even began.

There are some issues about capital that the chair is talking about. We need capital to build more schools. Hopefully, the minister will take her request very seriously — that, yes, you came about halfway by allocating $120 million for Surrey schools. But what the Surrey school board is talking about is that the need right now is over $270 million. That's what we need in order to build

[ Page 11352 ]

all those schools.

[1515]

The Minister of Finance said they have already committed to $273 million. If that's the case, I think that would be good news for Surrey — $273 million for building schools, new money.

Deputy Speaker: I would caution all further speakers to align their remarks to the contents of Bill 36.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It's a great pleasure to introduce 55 grade 5 students visiting from the Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. They are here to learn about how the government works, because in the future some of them want to be a Premier of this province or maybe the Prime Minister or an MLA or mayor or councillor.

They're joined here by their teachers, Mrs. Sue U-Ming and Mr. Grant Wirtz, as well as 19 volunteer parents who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany the students. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Thornthwaite: I will be remarking on just Bill 36, because that's what we're supposed to be talking about. I'd like to rise in support of Bill 36. Basically, what this bill is all about is flexibility and choice for school districts versus restrictions to innovation. It does bring us up to the 21st century. We feel, as a government, that we should be supporting school districts and supporting them for innovation as opposed to putting barriers up in front of them, which means also negativity for the students.

I'd like to just quote Michael McEvoy, who's the head of the B.C. School Trustees Association. He was heard to say: "We've moved into the 21st century, an era where kids went to school from September to June and would take in the crops during the summer months. That's not something that really exists in British Columbia anymore, so the school system is adapting to change, and the government will now allow boards around the province to make decisions about what they want to do in their communities."

The member for Surrey-Newton had mentioned — a couple of times, actually — the chair of the Surrey board of education, and I'd like to make a couple of quotes from her as well. "These changes provide greater autonomy, flexibility and recognize school boards as partners in education." She goes on to say: "Every school district has unique needs and challenges. These amendments mean we'll be able to provide greater flexibility and choice, and that means more options for students." Laurae McNally, chair of the Surrey board of education. So there you go.

I actually kind of got a kick out of the member for Skeena, the critic for Education, when he talked about the media coverage. I thought it was actually quite good. As in a lot of things to do with politics, there's been a lot of media coverage on this school calendar.

The issue is that right now, many school districts are not following the standard school calendar. In fact, 40 out of 60 school districts right now are not following the standard school calendar. So there's a lot of innovation out there.

My colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had mentioned Kanaka Creek School in Maple Ridge. I know that my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky had also mentioned West Van, so there are a lot of school districts that have taken it upon themselves to be progressive and to be supportive of what their parent community and their students really need.

I also enjoyed, basically, the crashing of the urban myth that people felt — way back in the other century, I guess — that kids actually did need this two-month break. As we all know, there has been more research that has come out more recently, saying that when the kids do have a long two-month break for the summertime, they tend to forget or they have decreased retention. I'm actually a supporter of a more balanced school year calendar as well, just because I think that for the two months there is a greater chance that kids forget.

Then my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had also mentioned — and himself being a teacher — that kids seem to be more energized and have greater retention and be more refreshed in the more balanced school calendar that the Kanaka Creek School in Maple Ridge offers to their students.

[1520]

I think one of the keys that are important…. I know people in my school district have commented on this. By the way, I've had one e-mail on Bill 36. One of them was concerned about consultation.

One of the things that this bill does put in writing is that consultation with the public, with the students, with the parents is required. I quote

section 8 of Bill 36. "Before submitting a school calendar or school calendars, as applicable, under subsection (5) or (6), the board must, in accordance with the regulations of the minister, consult with parents of the students enrolled in the school and representatives of employees of the board assigned to the school."

As long as the school districts are representing their constituents — meaning their students, their parents and their teachers — then let them do it. That's why I think this particular

section is progressive and very beneficial to school districts.

[ Page 11353 ]

The other issue that comes up with Bill 36 is the issue about fees and the IB program. I can talk a little bit from a personal perspective on this, because I come from a school district in North Vancouver. When I first started my tenure as a school trustee, we didn't have an IB program in North Van, but West Vancouver school district did. They still continue to have a very successful IB program.

What was generally happening was that those parents that maybe could not afford to take their kids to private school were instead taking their kids across the Capilano River to West Vancouver school district to the IB program at West Vancouver high.

In response to the public — the students', the teachers' and the parents' requests — the North Vancouver school district answered the call and now has a very comprehensive IB program that goes from primary to secondary school in the name of Capilano, Balmoral and Carson Graham.

I think the opportunity that this gives school districts to charge appropriately to what they think…. Let's face it; it's across the board in the province. The ministry does not set those rates. But if they are allowed to charge an amount for the IB program, then that will increase opportunities for the students within the public school system.

As opposed to having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition at a private school, now these kids can get an IB program in the public school with a minor fee. To me, this opportunity allows public school districts to offer choice for their students, their parents and their teachers. Obviously, it will help to keep, in my mind, public schools more viable.

The more choice that we offer in the public school system and the more opportunities the students have and the parents have, then the more and the greater chance that we'll be able to maintain the students in the public school system and maybe stop the bleeding, so to speak, to the private sector.

Again, my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission had mentioned the academies. We have, actually, a soccer academy in North Van that's just starting out next year, which my child is joining. The trades and the specialty schools simply just offer a greater choice in the public school system, so I support the idea of school districts supporting whatever is required to make these academies happen.

The other issue I'd just like to mention was the DL, the distributed learning. I was also supportive of the critic's comments when he talked about how successful the alternate program is in Terrace with regard to distributed learning.

In contrast to some folks that have talked about the increase in the age that these kids can take distributed learning, I'm not really worried that we're going to have an inundation of kindergarten kids leaving the television from SpongeBob SquarePants to go to distributed learning. I'm not really concerned about that.

[1525]

I do think that by limiting distributed learning to just the higher grades…. What about the kids in, say, grade 7 or 8 that are obviously computer specialists? What about those kids? They've had to miss out.

This, again, increases their choice, increases their flexibility. Particularly in rural districts, if the type of course that they wanted to take was not available in a brick-and-mortar school, it now will be available to them on line.

Then the last thing I just wanted to mention with regard to distributed learning is that it's already happening. I think the minister had mentioned that since 2006 to 2011…. There were 17,000 students in 2006 who were doing and utilizing distributed learning. Now in 2011 it's 77,000.

It's increased exponentially. The train has already left the station. The horses have already left the barn. So it's time to get on board and support these students, these parents and these school districts that really want to expand the choice for students.

In

summary, I just wanted to reiterate my support for Bill 36. I agree with my colleague from West Van–Sea to Sky that it's definitely supporting progression in the school system and that flexibility, choice and support are what these school districts need from the ministry. That's why I'm supporting it.

C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 36. As others have pointed out in this discussion and this debate, there are really three key parts to this bill. I'll speak on each of them, the first one being the school calendar issue. The second one in Bill 36 is the distributed-learning issue, and the third piece is the fees for IB, for International Baccalaureate. I'll talk a little bit about that as well.

As our Education critic said at the start of the debate, this really is an amendment bill. These are not brand-new issues coming forward. These are issues that have been in the School Act and that have been part, in fact, of many districts for a great deal of time. This bill simply clarifies in some areas, adds in others and makes some changes in others. It's not a brand-new bill from that perspective.

I want to start by talking about the context that this bill is coming into the House in. I raise that because I believe it's important to realize that when coming forward with changes that will require huge energy and huge consultation — I'll talk about that a little more specifically as I go on — you're bringing in something that requires that kind of consultation at a very difficult time in education in our province.

It's a very difficult time in education because of the confrontation that was caused by the government when it brought in Bill 22 and, instead of trying to deal with independent mediation, forced mediation with a chosen mediator on the teachers. Right now anything that comes

[ Page 11354 ]

forward in education is going to be done in that context. It's going to be done in the context of confrontation, of chaos, of difficult times, of a broken relationship.

Looking at this bill and not seeing that it was anything brand-new, I have to say that I really hoped that this would have been the time where government would have put all their time and energy and asked everybody in the education system to put all their time and energy into repairing that relationship and improving things in the existing education system.

That's what's going to be good for children. That's what's going to improve student learning — to end the war in education that we've seen under this government and actually start improving things in our education system, actually start working together.

Think what could be accomplished if we actually had school boards, teachers, the government, parents and students working together on behalf of public education. Think of what an extraordinary time we could have in our province.

[1530]

We have a great education system. As the minister said earlier, we could make our education system so much stronger, so much more improved by rebuilding that relationship and spending time to do that. Yet we see Bill 36 coming in, not focused on that but focused on more time and more energy that's going to be needed in school districts to have to try and address the pieces of Bill 36.

There's lots of work still ahead. Bill 22 did not end the work that has to happen around class size, around school organization, around mediation, around what may come forward from mediation. There's still so much work to do coming out of Bill 22 that to now see another bill come forward, I worry.

I worry for the stress on our education system. I worry for the stress on all the individuals in our education system, including parents and, most importantly, students, because they're the ones who feel this kind of stress. I'm bringing this up because I can't imagine the challenge of most school boards in this kind of environment, taking on these kinds of changes and these kinds of difficulties.

Just to start off with the first piece that this bill speaks to, which is the issue of school calendar and changing a school calendar. Now, having been a school trustee for 11 years, I certainly know the challenges that come forward with discussing change around school calendar or school day or school structure. That happens in a school district. I lived through some of those debates.

The debate around configuration of schools — whether to go to a secondary model, whether to go to a middle school model — was a debate that began in our school district that took years. In-depth discussion to talk about what was really good for student achievement. What did the research show us? What was the best direction to go? That's a huge decision and a huge discussion to occur.

A debate we had around school hours…. People may have read, and I'm sure the minister has as well, some of the research around school hours and the debate about whether it makes sense to start school later at secondary school for high school students — whether there is actually a physical rationale around starting school later.

Well, just to begin that discussion and that debate in a school district is a massive undertaking, to be able to have that conversation. We can't underestimate the challenge of taking on this kind of discussion and kind of consultation in a school district, so I'm pleased to see that the bill does include local consultation. It does include and require the school district to involve the employees and the parents and, hopefully, the students in areas as well.

I think that's critical. I can't imagine anyone looking at changing a school calendar without that kind of discussion. But it brings up all kinds of questions. It brings up all kinds of questions for parents. Right now we have within every school district in our province a wide variety of choice for parents. Parents can have their children in schools in different parts of the district. They can go out of what used to be thought of as catchment.

A lot of people have talked about the school calendar and the history of the school calendar. Similarly, with catchment areas, it used to be — certainly, when I went to school and for many of us in this House — that you went to your neighbourhood school. That's where you went. There wasn't a discussion about going to a school across town or going to a specialized program or going somewhere else in another school district.

Those weren't discussions that parents had nor the students had. You went to your neighbourhood school. You were expected to go to the school in your community. Now students and parents have a much wider variety of choices in schools, and that's a positive thing. That's not a negative thing, from my perspective, in education.

I think it's important that if we're really looking at trying to meet the needs of every student — and students don't come in one size and one package — we need to make sure that we have a variety of choices available for those children. I think it's a plus that we now have that change that has occurred, but with that change come some real challenges for school districts.

The funding still comes per student. It still comes to the school district. They still have to organize their schools come September. School boards are still required to look at class size, to organize children into classrooms.

[1535]

That's still part of the requirement from funding and structure and staffing perspectives. That can't be ignored when you look at this, so that creates some additional challenges.

Well, now you add on a school calendar for parents. If you think about being a parent with children in two different schools, different parts of town, different areas that you have to do pickups, think of adding on to that

[ Page 11355 ]

two different schedules, completely different school year schedules. I think that just is an example of the challenge that this creates when you look at creating different kinds of schedules.

Think of the challenge for child care, not simply for the parents trying to find child care but for the child care providers themselves. I know, just from my own area, from the area of greater Victoria, the challenges that parents and child care providers have trying to manage different spring breaks in a school calendar, currently. We have different school districts just in our area. Some have one week. Some have two weeks. Some have different weeks. The challenge that creates for child care providers trying to determine how they're going to manage to provide child care…. Which district? Which pickup?

Which program is going to happen? Which spring break program is going to happen? It's very difficult for those child care providers and even more difficult for parents to try and manage.

I think it just shows the work that's going to be needed to have a discussion around school calendar. I think others have said this but I don't think anyone should expect that you're going to see wholesale change with this legislation coming in. We're not going to all of a sudden see school districts getting rid of summer and moving on to altered calendars. This is going to be a process that's going to take a long time.

I think there are going to be many school boards, along with their parents and their staff, that are going to ask themselves: "What's the best place to put our energy to improve student learning? Is it school calendar? Is it the kind of instruction we provide? Is it the variety of programs that we provide? Is it supporting the staff in our district so they're better able to do their job? Is it more resources that we need?"

I mean, those are the kinds of discussions, and I certainly believe — because I believe we have people who work in our system who care deeply about public education — that those are conversations that are going to come. I don't believe that for most districts or parents or students, school calendar is going to be top of mind. Student achievement and making sure that our students have the best environment possible are going to be top of mind, and there are a lot of issues right now on the list before school calendar.

There's one piece of the bill — and I know we'll get into it when we get into committee stage — under

section 87.01(3)(

c) that talks about variations in school calendar "for one or more groups of students in a school." I have to say that worried me a little bit to think about not only a variety of a school calendar, but a variety of a school calendar within a school as well. Now, perhaps that's related to specialized programs within the school, but I think those are questions that we'll want to get to as we go along on the committee stage of this bill, because I think those are critically important for parents to be aware of as well.

The second issue that I want to speak to that's critical in this bill, in Bill 36, is the issue of distributed learning. The minister started his remarks, quite rightly, to remind people that distributed learning is there now. I think, as other people have remarked in this House, it used to be called distance education. The name has changed, but it's basically an ability for students to be able to enrol in a program done on line.

The previous speaker to me talked about students who are keen on technology moving into distance education, or distributed learning. In fact, I've certainly found, in my time involved in education, it's not students who are keen on technology, in most cases, who move into distributed learning. It's often students who are not able to get courses in a particular area, whether it's a rural community or a smaller community or not enough students interested in that course. They tend to be the students who look at distributed learning to be able to do that. It's a program that often applies for students who aren't able to manage in the school system, for a whole variety of reasons.

[1540]

Whether it's school phobia, whether it's peer issues, whether it's other issues, often there are students who have disconnected with the school system and need another way of connecting into education. Distributed learning often appeals to those students as well.

When I take a look at the distributed-learning

section in Bill 36, in general terms it sounds like a direction that may make some sense — providing opportunities for students to find flexibility within their course, to be able to take part of their courses in school and part of their courses on distributed learning. But I think, like everything else in this bill, and like almost everything else that comes forward in legislation, it all depends on the practical implementation of this issue — very similar to personalized learning.

We hear a lot about personalized learning. We hear the minister talk a lot about personalized learning. Well, most of us, when we take a look at the large goals and the lofty words, wouldn't find much to disagree with — meeting the needs of students, individualized learning students. But again, if you look at the practical, how do we apply that? That's the critical piece we need to take a look at. That's the critical piece — the details and the implementation that is going to occur.

So for me, when I take a look at the distributed-learning section, it raises a number of questions that I would hope we'll hear from the minister on, as we go along, or I hope we'll have more consultation and discussion. I think that's a question for the minister as well.

The school calendar issue is not much of a change, because the school districts already had the ability to be able to set a school calendar, to change the school calendar. But the changes to distributed learning — to change the age categories and also give the ability for students to both enrol in school and distributed learning — are

[ Page 11356 ]

major changes.

I'd be interested in hearing from the minister around what kind of consultation was done on this issue. What kind of discussion occurred with school boards, with teachers, with students, with parents to look at making these changes? What was the rationale? Again, I think everything needs to go through the lens of how does this improve student learning? What kind of research was done to look at distributed learning to take a look at what the results are for students now? How could we ensure accountability around students who are taking distributed learning?

Those are all issues that I would hope to hear from the minister on, because I think they are critical questions around these changes on distributed learning. How will this improve student learning? How will this provide an opportunity for students to improve their achievement? What basis was used to bring forward these changes?

The practical questions, Madam Speaker, that I thought of when I took a look at Bill 36 and when I took a look at the distributed-learning

section were questions like how are you going to ensure that a student, who may decide to take one course with distributed learning and the rest of their

schedule in school, gets to their distributed learning opportunity, whether that's at home or whether that's in a computer lab in school? How is that, practically, going to work? Will you require supervision for students?

If you are now looking at kindergarten as an opportunity for students to be able to do part distributed learning and

part learning in the school, how on earth is that practically going to work? Who's going to manage that? Who's going to supervise those children? How are you going to deal with a student who may be in a class for part of the day and not in a class for the other? What does that do to the whole issue of class size? What does that do to school organization? How are districts going to manage that?

I raise this not to say that it's an impossibility for us to look at this kind of flexibility. I think we should be looking at all kinds of opportunities to be creative in our school system, but these are very valid questions that have to be addressed in order to bring this forward.

I haven't seen any of that discussion going on in the education system, and that concerns me because I think major changes in the education system should be well discussed, well researched, well looked at and well supported if they are really going to succeed.

The best changes that have occurred in our education system have occurred when the relationships are good, when people are excited about the change, when you have people involved in the education system coming together to say: "Yes, let's do this to improve student learning. Let's embrace this together."

[1545]

Certainly, in the days when I was a school trustee we used to meet with the Education Minister on a regular basis, together with all the education partners. It was a chance to be able to talk about the strengths of our relationships. It was an opportunity to talk about what was a priority around student achievement.

It's not accurate to say that those days can't come back in British Columbia, that we can't find an opportunity, once again, to bring all of the partners together in education to talk about the best interests of the student — to talk about how we can improve education, to talk about how we can be flexible within the system to meet the needs of every child and how we can look at increasing choice — and ensure that we do that in a way that works for the system as well.

I would be interested, as I said, in hearing from the minister about what kind of discussion has occurred, because I worry, once again, that we build up expectations in our education system. We build up expectations for parents and others, to say that students will be able to all of a sudden now, once this bill is passed, take some courses on distributed learning and some courses within the school — there will be no problem to it; they'll be able to work out a

schedule — when in fact we know that that's not, practically, the way it's going to occur.

There are going to be some issues and some challenges that need to be worked through, discussions that have to happen. Just as I talked about the kind of consultation that needs to occur with the School Act, that's also the kind of consultation that is going to have to happen around distributed learning.

I think the other point that's really important, particularly in the distributed-learning

section of this bill, is the issue of resources. It's not surprising that people in the education system who see this bill coming forward are concerned that it's another opportunity to take resources out of the system. I don't blame them for feeling that way, because in fact that's what we've seen over the last 11 years.

We've seen resources squeezed in the education system. There isn't a school district that doesn't now have less teacher-librarians, less school counsellors, less non-enrolling teachers, and — in many cases — less teachers, larger class sizes, less support for students with special needs. Those are all realities that have occurred over the last 11 years.

Again, as I started my remarks, given that context, it's no surprise that you would see people looking at this bill, particularly with the relationship the way it is in the province, and saying: "Is this just a way for the Liberal government to be able to save resources in the school system by moving people to distributed learning rather than in classrooms and in schools?"

How will distributed learning impact those numbers in schools? Again, to come back to the funding model and the numbers that are there, how will that impact the school district's funding if you have students enrolled in distributed learning? What will that do to the amount of

[ Page 11357 ]

resources that come to a school district?

In fact, if you look at the issue of distributed learning, many teachers that I've talked to who have seen successes for students in distributed learning, for students who have not been able to manage in the school system and have moved to courses of distributed learning and who've been able to manage…. It's labour-intensive. It's not simply putting a child in front of a computer, giving them the curriculum and expecting that that's going to work.

Similarly with parents who home-school, there's a lot of work involved. There's a lot of time and energy and resources and support that's needed to make that work — well, similarly with distributed learning. I don't think we've had those questions and issues canvassed and discussed — and, certainly, as I said, not in a broad sense — in the education system.

I come back to the point I made earlier, which was that the biggest successes we've had in the education system have been successes because all of the partners have come together, because people have been excited about moving ahead with something in education. Are you ever going to get total agreement? No. But to have all the partners on board on something is certainly going to be a stronger piece.

The last piece I want to just mention that's in this bill, of course, is the whole issue of the IB programs. I think others have spoken, as I would, with great strength about that program. It's a very positive program, a program that many districts are offering currently.

[1550]

It was a program that began in the grade 11-12 year and now moved, in many school districts, to earlier — down to primary. Students have great success in that program. I understand the pressure that school boards are facing. I understand the cost of the exam. I understand the issue of school boards saying: "Those are additional dollars that we don't have in our school district."

I just want to raise the red flag about a worry of, once again, creating more inequities in our districts, more difficulties in our districts. If some boards are charging fees and some aren't, what does that do to students who are not able to pay and who are not able to go to a different school district? I think that just causes more inequities and difficulties, and so I worry about that area as well.

Just in closing, I think the bill, as I said, is not bringing forward huge, massive changes in education. It's bringing forward amendments when it comes to school calendars. It's bringing forward changes in distributed learning and expanding the opportunities for distributed learning and fees on the IB program.

I do have to ask whether this is the best time in education — in the kinds of relationships we have in education — to bring forward major change that is going to require major consultation. Perhaps we should be looking at rebuilding the relationships between government and our teachers, which is going to improve student learning, rebuilding the relationship with the entire education system so that when changes come forward, we can stand together united in this House, along with teachers and parents and employees in this district and celebrate our education system.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I take my place in the debate on Bill 36, the School Amendment Act. I'm pleased to be following my colleague the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who outlined some of the real problems — the backdrop under which this bill has been introduced.

The intent of the bill is clearly, I would say, to be looking at how we deliver education in the 21st century and how we have changed in our ways of working, both in our moving from the traditional — as we've described it, the agrarian style — into a much more urban, industrial style of life and how even that is evolving with new technologies. We have access to both distributed learning and learning through web-based technologies and so on.

This would have a stronger foundation, I believe, if this was a dialogue that was very active, if this was something people were really talking about, really engaged in, both here in B.C. and across the country. In a greater conversation, if that conversation was happening on where it is that we wanted to place the whole system and how we wanted to shape that system, whether we wanted to be innovative leaders in the system and take it in new directions….

I haven't heard that conversation happening. I've not heard it across the country, and I have definitely not heard it in the province. I think that what we do have here in the province is that there has been a fracturing. Instead of having this amendment bill introduced…. Where it is coming from, where the seeds are planted, where the ground is fertile and the seeds could grow, there could be shoots.

Instead, it's coming at a time when there has been an incredible fracturing of our education system. Over the last 12 years it has come under increasing pressure in terms of funding, in terms of stresses, in terms of the way that has been organized.

What we see — the immediate backdrop to this piece of legislation, as my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill and others have mentioned — is that Bill 22, the legislation which has imposed a mediator on teachers, has changed their wording on class sizes and composition. It has really left a very bad taste in many people's mouths, in those who are in education, the educators, principals, those within the system.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I can draw you back to the contents of Bill 36.

[1555]

C. Trevena: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

What I am giving here is the background for this bill.

[ Page 11358 ]

I think that is part of the background. Very recently Bill 22 came in, and now we get Bill 36. Oh, count the numbers. It's 14 bills, even though that's not chronological. It's a very recent backdrop. We really need to be looking at something to be healing the wounds rather than taking a completely new direction.

Also in the backdrop, there is the continued debate about whether they should have testing, whether we have the funding. I mean, I represent a larger, rural constituency. One of the areas that this bill talks about is distributed learning. Students in schools in my constituency use distributed learning because they can't get courses. They can't do the classes. There aren't the teachers available to do the classes. There aren't enough students to do the classes.

Also, the impact in rural communities is the funding model. It really has had a huge impact on the quality of education in rural schools and the ability for all students to get that quality of education and, in fact, for many schools to remain open — because of that funding model.

We are talking about, really, what could be a very major change to the education system if it was taken its full way through Bill 36, on a backdrop, on a ground, that has been, I would say, torn up, brutalized. It isn't a healthy ground on which to be sowing the seeds that this bill really is suggesting.

As I mentioned, we have the distributed learning aspect in the bill, and under the amendment it would allow for a greater amount of distributed learning, going all the way down to kindergarten instead of just in the higher grades.

As I say, there are students in the three school districts which come within my constituency where students are using distributed learning. They are using it to access courses and classes they can't get because their situation is such that, either because of student numbers or because of funding, the schools can't provide those classes every year. It's something that happens already there for senior levels. It doesn't happen at the more elementary levels. It doesn't happen at kindergarten levels.

Sometimes distributed learning is very good for the achievers. It's very good for, perhaps, as one of the members opposite said, those students who want to do technological courses that you can't get elsewhere, who want to specialize a bit more and can't get it through the system they have in their classroom. The students who are achieving are likely going to do quite well anyway and be able to push forward.

If we start talking about distributed learning at younger ages, I think we could face a real problem. My colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill mentioned the problem of just trying to navigate the system of having different children in different areas doing different subjects. It could be very disruptive, both in the classroom and outside the classroom.

We see distributed learning in the alternate schools. We see it already being used. Oftentimes a number of students are in one classroom all doing different classes, all doing different subjects. But the difference there is they have a teacher. It's been proven time and again that having a teacher in place really encourages students' ability to learn, encourages the engagement.

Just providing distributed learning, just providing the class, doesn't necessarily allow the student to get the benefit of it. Those students, as I say, in my constituency who want access to a class would have guidance from their teacher, but they want that access because they are in a rural school setting where they don't get it otherwise.

Looking to taking it further down, we could potentially see — and I say potentially, because we need to have the full debate about this; we need to get more details — huge fragmentation by increasing distributed learning.

[1600]

As I say, there are real concerns when we're talking about taking it all the way down to kindergarten level or grade 1, grade 2.

[D. Black in the chair.]

At that age there is much more engagement with an instructor, much more engagement with the teacher, to ensure that those students — those children, really — are really learning. If you give them distributed learning, often screen-based, they're not going to get that engagement. They're going to be isolated, and they are going to be working separately.

One of the things that is proven time and time again in kindergarten, in the younger students, is that part of the value of being in the classroom is learning how to socialize, learning how to work with others, learning how to participate either within the team as a classroom or just the sharing of the classroom. If you start doing distributed learning at that age, it really can be very, very problematic.

It also can be, I think, quite disruptive to the system. If you have one student here taking one distributed-learning class and another student taking another, it really can be disruptive to the system that is there, disruptive for the teachers and disruptive for the rest of the class, because we aren't talking always about that one child. We are talking about the education for as many students as possible.

What we keep talking about and keep priding ourselves on is that we should have the best education model possible, and our students all get equal opportunity and equality of opportunity. This is not necessarily going to be providing that.

The other thing about distributed learning is that it is being talked about more widely and is being used more widely, but we haven't actually had the discussion, either, about the success rate, about the achievement levels, about how productive it is. Say, for certain students, rural schools, opportunity to do a class they might not other-

[ Page 113