2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

John Slater

Hon. C. Clark

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M219 — Franchise Act

C. James

Bill M220 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2015

A. Weaver

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Nursing Week and contributions of nurses

J. Yap

Volunteers

J. Shin

Aboriginal social enterprises

D. Plecas

Celebrate Your Breasts art project by Nancy Pratt

R. Austin

Royal British Columbia Museum

J. Tegart

Summit on kidney and organ donation and transplantation

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Conflict-of-interest concerns regarding Larry Blain and Partnerships B.C.

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

B. Ralston

K. Corrigan

Review of child death case

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

J. Rice

Child death review process

N. Simons

Hon. S. Cadieux

Gaming policy changes and role of Lottery Corporation CEO

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

B. Routley

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

V. Huntington

N. Macdonald

K. Corrigan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development

Hon. R. Coleman

B. Ralston

D. Eby

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

S. Hammell

[ Page 8437 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

JOHN SLATER

Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, it is with tremendous regret and sadness that I inform you and this House today that one of ours, a former member of this House, MLA John Slater, has passed away.

Anyone who knew John knew that he was incredibly passionate about his home and the people who made Osoyoos so special. That passion led to 30 years of dedicated public service in favour of the community that he loved so much, and he lent his time to everything from coaching young people to volunteering with the chamber of commerce. He stood for public office, first as a councillor, then as mayor, and then, of course, as we all got to know him, as the MLA representing that community.

But those of us who knew him well enough always knew that John never defined himself first as a politician. He always defined himself first as a farmer. He wasn’t afraid to roll up his sleeves and get started on the work that needed to be done, like all the farmers I know. So when he became an MLA, he took on the challenges that he was presented with, with real vigour, including laying the groundwork to modernize the century-old legislation that protects B.C.’s water. He was very proud of the Water Sustainability Act, which has recently been passed in this Legislature, and for very good reason, because he was very much a part of shaping it.

[1335]

Throughout Boundary-Similkameen, if you go there today, you can find many more of the fruits of John’s hard work: the new high school in Oliver, the new Horizon Health Centre in Osoyoos, the expanded Midway Arena, the new highway improvements and public walkways you’ll find all over the community. But from a personal perspective, I think the thing that most of us, and certainly I, will remember about John the most is his incredible warmth and how generously he welcomed new people into his life without judgment and with a lot of kindness.

I know that all members in this House, on all sides of it, will join me in extending our deepest condolences to John’s family, his friends, to everyone across the province whose lives he touched and made better.

J. Horgan: I and all of my colleagues join with the Premier and every member of this House in acknowledging and recognizing the passing of John Slater, who for most of his adult life focused on public service to his community. For that, certainly, the region is in his debt.

It is always a difficult time, and I know that my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, who were much closer to John, are having very, very sad feelings today. We on this side of the House, and myself personally, will remember John’s enthusiasm, John’s smile and how he did, as the Premier said, make people feel comfortable and at ease. That is a testimony — in a place that is often riddled with divisiveness and confrontation — that someone could pass from this life to the next knowing that all of his colleagues wish him well on that passage.

Certainly, on behalf of the opposition and joining with the Premier, I ask the Speaker to send our deepest condolences to the Slater family.

Introductions by Members

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a whole lot of organizations representing nurses to the Legislature today.

This is National Nursing Week, and today in the gallery we have the Association of Registered Nurses of B.C., represented by Julie Fraser, their president; and Zak Matieschyn, the president-elect, representing all RNs and nurse practitioners; the association of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., represented by Jacqollyne Keaths; the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association, represented by Stan Marchuk and Andrea Burton; the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C., represented by Teresa McFadyen; and the Nursing Education Council of B.C., represented by Suzanne Campbell.

The theme of Nursing Week this year is “Nurses: with you every step of the way,” and that is certainly the case for all nurses in the province of British Columbia. What’s especially significant this year is that the Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C. has formed a new association. We now have all of these nursing associations working together to improve health care for British Columbians.

Will the entire House please join me in welcoming these nurses, who are really central to our health care system and to public health care in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: I, too, would like to join in welcoming all of the nurses that we have here today. I believe there are about 60 nurses joining us in the gallery, and I had the opportunity to meet with the leadership of all of the associations that the member has just mentioned this morning for breakfast. We had a wide-ranging discussion about nursing leadership, about the nursing profession.

We all know and appreciate the tremendous work and contribution that nurses make to our health care system. It is why we’re so proud of the health care system

[ Page 8438 ]

in British Columbia: because we know nurses are the foundation of that system. Again, I would like to join the member opposite and welcome all of our nurse friends that are here today.

J. Horgan: I pose a question to everybody, even though it’s not question period. What happens when three women — one from Corner Brook, one from Ottawa and one from Victoria — come together on southern Vancouver Island for a little bit of a reunion? Well, of course they come to question period in the Legislative Assembly.

Joining us here today are my friend Lucy Meares, Lisa Bennett and Helen McNair. All three of them have been lifetime friends, and they’ve come here to watch us deliberate and make good policy for the people of British Columbia. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

[1340]

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two of my constituents, Mr. Guy Black and his son Cameron. Guy Black is a Canadian Forces veteran and in 2008 organized the largest Korean War commemorative event, which was held at the Burnaby Village Museum. The city of Port Moody has organized many ceremonies and commemorative events, some with as many as 25 groups attending.

He also was integral to the building of some trenches at the Port Moody museum, which is being utilized to provide education about the horrors of war. In addition, he walked over here from Port Moody to Victoria with three others as a remembrance to our war veterans to lay a wreath here in Victoria.

Would the House please make Guy Black and his son Cameron very welcome.

M. Mungall: As was said, nurses do play a central role in our communities and in our lives. But there’s one nurse, up in the gallery right now, who plays a very central role in my life. This is my husband, Zak Matieschyn. So if the House could please give him, particularly, a very special welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: I am honoured today to introduce some members of the B.C. and Yukon Catholic Women’s League. It’s an organization with 9,000 members here in British Columbia. It’s an organization that forms an integral part of my own Christian faith.

The women representing the league here today are president Pat Deppiesse from North Vancouver; president-elect Evelyn Rigby from Powell River; the council legislation chairperson Gisela Montague from Chilliwack; and council resolutions chairperson Dianne Barker from Kamloops.

The motto of the league, “For God and Canada,” embodies their mission of life and vitality of the Catholic Church, of family and community abroad and at home.

They are here today in various meetings with members of the Legislature. I would ask that the House please make them feel welcome.

A. Dix: I’m happy to introduce today Farah Golesteneh and Wane Taylor. They’re entrepreneurs, former franchise owners and advocates for franchise law reform in British Columbia. They’re here both to support the reform and the creation of a new franchise act and to join us here in the gallery for question period.

I hope you make them welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my incredible honour to rise today to welcome a new community from my city from the Christian Chaldean community, originating from northern Iraq.

This community, where some of the original Christians celebrated mass in the area north of Mosul in the Middle East for almost 2,000 years, was forced from their homes by the terrors of ISIS.

This community has found a new home in Canada, specifically in British Columbia and in Surrey. I want to welcome them, where they can practice their religion, their language, their culture and join with us in creating a stronger British Columbia.

I wish to introduce some of their community leaders who have taken the time to visit us here today. With us we have Sarmed Biloues. We have Samira Astifo. We have Salah Dawood, Athraa Tobyia, Ammar Nabod, Lina Qaryaqos, Sandy Al-Bahee, Aida Astifo, Wasan Qiryaqus and Nabeel Sulaiman.

My friends, we are proud that you remake your lives here in Canada, remake your lives in British Columbia. You’re going to make this province a lot stronger by your presence.

Would the House please join me in making my friends welcome.

B. Routley: I’d like the House to help me in welcoming Sonia Furstenau. She’s a CVRD director for the Shawnigan Lake region of the Cowichan Valley. With her today were the Shawnigan Residents Association, students from the Shawnigan Lake School.

They were here to exercise their democratic rights outside the Legislature and to talk about the importance of Shawnigan Lake to their community and to respectfully ask government to listen to their concerns and petitions and to act on behalf of the community. I have with me a petition of some 15,000 petitioners, which I will present in due course.

Thank you, and could we please join in welcoming these good folks to this House.

[1345]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s my pleasure to welcome two former mayors from my home community of Parksville, who are here today. Although Chris Burger and Ed Mayne are no holding public office, they are still actively engaged

[ Page 8439 ]

in our community and committed to contributing to its future.

If I am to be haunted by the ghosts of past mayors, I am lucky and happy that it is these two individuals. If the House would please welcome them, Chris and Ed, to the chamber today.

J. Shin: I have two sets of introductions today. First off, I would like to welcome to the House Mr. Seik Cheon. He hails from Coquitlam, where the B.C.-Alberta

chapter of Korea Daily is located, to cover live all of the exciting issues and bills that we are going to be having in store for him today. Of course, Korea Daily and Mr. Cheon play a vital role in communicating news that matters to our local Korean community here in B.C. and the rest of western Canada, so I ask the House to please thank and welcome him.

We also have a very special group of British Columbians visiting us today of Eritrean descent. Eritrea forms the part of the Horn of Africa bordered by Sudan to the west-north and the Red Sea to the east and Ethiopia to the south, with a population that’s quite similar to British Columbia at 4.5 million.

The Eritrean history is one of the oldest in Africa and possibly in the world. It’s the most likely location of the land known to the ancient Egyptians as Punt, whose first mention dates back to 25th century BC. Eritrea means red, with reference to the Red Sea, from which the modern state takes its name.

Many Eritrean Canadians have called Canada their home for more than 30 years, and those in British Columbia reside largely in Metro Vancouver, and Surrey especially. Like any other cultural groups, the Eritreans have formed a community association and a cultural centre to address the social and cultural needs of Eritrean Canadians and that of our province at large.

I ask the members to please join me in welcoming our friends from the Eritrean community who sew their cheery and resilient spirit into our social fabric.

Hon. C. Oakes: It’s not too often that I have the opportunity to introduce friends from my constituency of Cariboo North, and friends of Minister Coleman as well. Laurie Rice is here visiting today, and she joined me last night for an incredibly special signing of two things that I’m absolutely passionate about. The signing of an MOU between the Royal B.C. Museum and Barkerville Heritage Trust.

Tonight we are very privileged, as well, to celebrate the opening of the Royal B.C. Museum’s exhibit Gold Rush: El Dorado . I would encourage all members of the House to have the opportunity to go visit this exciting exhibit that celebrates so much of our history across British Columbia. Would the House please help me to welcome Laurie.

M. Dalton: One of my constituents, Mr. Albert Wells, who lives at the Chartwell Cedarbrooke Residence in Mission, is about to reach a huge milestone — his 100th birthday. But before he reaches his centennial, Albert Wells is to be appointed to the rank of Knight of the National Order of the Legion of Honour in recognition of his heroic efforts in combat during the Second World War.

The award will be presented in a private ceremony by the consul general of France; however, Mission is celebrating this remarkable honour with Mr. Wells at a special community function next week. The distinction, the highest national order of the Republic of France and established in 1802 by Napoleon Bonaparte, honours Mr. Wells’ invaluable participation in France’s liberation efforts and that country’s profound gratitude and appreciation of his allegiance.

I’m sure every member in this House will join me in applauding Mission’s newest Knight, Mr. Albert Wells.

Hon. J. Rustad: Today I have some guests in the gallery that are working as interns in my ministry, for the past number of months now, through the aboriginal youth internship program. They are Mason Ducharme, who is from the Lil’wat and In-SHUCK-ch Nations, who spent a very cold winter, actually, up in Fort St. John doing some work with us, as well as Leslie-Ann Paige from the Nation of Cowichan Tribes. She has actually been working with us through my ministry advisory council on aboriginal women and helped with the organization of our visit to Ottawa for the national round table on missing and murdered women.

[1350]

With them, as well, is Stephanie Papik, who has been working now with us in the public service for the last eight years.

I’d ask that the House please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: I’d like to introduce specifically some members in the delegation that the member for Burnaby-Lougheed has referred to, Canadians who trace their origins to Eritrea: Mr. Zerai Beraki, Ruth Beraki, Mamet Berhane, Legesse Gebremedhin Medhane, Yordanos Tsehaye, Saba Guebezai, Redie Kifle Berhe, Tewolde Mehari and Habtom Teclemariam. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Kyllo: I have a couple of friends joining me in the House today, reigning from the metropolis of Sicamous — a couple of schoolmates. We have Bob De Wit — Bob is the CEO of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association — and Doug Parton, who works with the Ironworkers. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

H. Bains: Part of the Eritrean delegation I’d like to join with my colleagues to introduce — three members from Surrey: Elsa Woldu, Abrehet Berhe Kinfu and Mengisteab

[ Page 8440 ]

Yemane. Please help me extend a warm welcome to them.

D. Bing: I have the pleasure of introducing some visitors from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows today. They are 25 grade 5 students from Maple Ridge Christian School, their teacher Mr. Reid and nine parent escorts. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: I, too, would like to make welcome a member of the Eritrean delegation who is from Port Coquitlam, and that is Mr. Girmai Gmariam. If the House would make him most welcome, I’d really appreciate that.

J. Darcy: I’d also like to welcome a constituent of mine from New Westminster who is part of the Eritrean-Canadian delegation today, Mr. Kibrom Yemane. Will the House please join me in making him feel very, very welcome today.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three of my constituents who are members of this Eritrean delegation today: Mr. Berhan Yassin, Mr. Michael Araya, and Mr. Thamay Araya. Please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M219 — FRANCHISE ACT

C. James presented a bill intituled Franchise Act.

C. James: I move that a bill intituled Franchise Act, 2015, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: I’m pleased to table in this House the Franchise Act for British Columbia to ensure that franchisees in our province are able to operate on a level playing field with the corporations they are partnering with. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in British Columbia.

Many of those small businesses are franchise operators. Many franchisees are first-time business owners looking for an opportunity to provide for their family, launch into business, use their entrepreneurial skills and contribute to our economy. It’s estimated that there are roughly 10,000 franchise outlets in British Columbia, with $14 billion in sales and 180,000 employees.

Buying a franchise requires a significant investment of capital on the part of the franchisee, yet the relationship is often characterized by unequal bargaining power. Franchisees are often at the mercy of the large franchisers.

Other provinces have legislation to ensure these large corporations deal fairly with small business, and the act I’m introducing today would do just that. It would ensure a level playing field, require full disclosure. It would allow claims arising for a franchise agreement to be litigated in B.C. courts. It would provide for dispute resolution where needed and would allow a franchisee to recover losses arising from misrepresentation in the disclosure document.

Extensive consultation has occurred in our province, and the B.C. Law Institute has been actively involved in this area, preparing a draft bill to address the concerns raised on which our bill is based. On behalf of small business owners, it’s time to act on their concerns. It’s time to bring protection to these hard-working British Columbians, which is why I bring this bill forward today.

[1355]

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

Bill M219, Franchise Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M220 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2015.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that is designed to empower British Columbians so that their voices can be more effectively heard on environmental reviews of major projects like oil pipelines.

It’s fitting that I introduce this bill this week as we move to committee stage debates on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. Too often politicians let themselves believe that the only time they need to listen to voters is at elections, and I disagree.

If we are to re-engage British Columbians in our democracy, we need to actively seek their view on far more of what we debate in the Legislature. We also need to provide them with additional tools to hold their government to account. The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act is one such tool.

As every member of this House will surely agree, we live in the most beautiful part of the world, and British Columbians want to keep it that way. They want to ensure our pristine coastlines, our natural environment and our unique ecosystems are preserved.

Under the existing Recall and Initiative Act, an individual can put forward a bill to be either debated in the Legislature or put up for a non-binding referendum. To

[ Page 8441 ]

be successful, the proponent must collect signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in each of the 85 electoral districts within 90 days.

The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act would change the electoral district requirement for initiatives that specifically address pulling out of environmental assessment equivalency agreements with the federal government. Successful petitions in these instances would require signatures from 15 percent of registered voters in British Columbia, regardless of electoral district, making it easier to meet the requirements.

British Columbians have lost faith in the federal review process, particularly as they pertain to oil pipeline proposals. The province has not listened to their voices, and this bill would offer British Columbians an opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard. If an initiative were to pass, under the proposed changes in the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, it would require government to pull out of an existing environmental assessment equivalency agreement for a particular project and hold its own, made-in-B.C. review of, for example, a proposed heavy-oil pipeline.

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

Bill M220, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2015, 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)

NURSING WEEK AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF NURSES

J. Yap: British Columbians can be rightly proud of our province’s public health care system. It’s one of the finest in the world, and this is something to which I can personally attest.

Today I wish to pay tribute to some 50,000 people whose contributions are paramount to this accomplishment and make a world of difference to those they help. These are our province’s nurses. This week, until May 17, is National Nursing Week. It’s recognized annually to coincide with the birth of Florence Nightingale, which is May 12.

For so many, nurses are the first point of contact for patients in the health system. They’re often the health care providers who have the most ongoing, regular interactions with patients. They understand a patient’s entire journey through the health system. They also take the time to listen, help and to provide a voice for those in need along the way.

This Nursing Week, and as always, I’d like to thank and acknowledge all of British Columbia’s nurses for their commitment to their patients and for the quality of support they provide every day at the forefront of our health care system. The lives of most British Columbians have been touched and enhanced by a nurse in some way. I know mine has been, by nurses at Vancouver General Hospital and Richmond Hospital. It’s very fitting that the theme of this year’s Nursing Week is “Nurses: with you every step of the way.”

I hope everyone here will join me in thanking B.C.’s 50,000 nurses and to let them know that we are also with them and offer them our unqualified support.

VOLUNTEERS

J. Shin: There’s a party in town that happens once a year that I wouldn’t miss. It’s the city of Burnaby’s appreciation dinner, which just took place earlier this month, for the unsung heroes in our communities, which are the volunteers.

The world has gotten smaller, and perhaps we’ve also become that much more polarized in our views and fragmented in our society. So like my nana tells me, the comforting sense of social connection to our neighbours and looking out for one another is increasingly difficult to achieve in today’s world.

[1400]

Canadians continue to rise to this challenge by generously volunteering more than two billion hours every year. That’s the equivalent of 1.1 million full-time jobs.

The latest statistics show that nearly half of us volunteer an average of 156 hours each year, women and men alike. Of all age groups, it’s the elderly in our society that contribute the most, who volunteer the most. As a proud British Columbian, I’m also happy to report that British Columbia celebrates the highest amount of volunteering time per person in religious organizations. That, I think, speaks to the diversity we have in the province, and it’s also a measure of our social conscience amongst our people.

Volunteering benefits those of us who receive the volunteer services and helps charitable and non-profit organizations deliver the needed programs and services. All of us have been touched by the work of volunteers, but those are not the main reasons why we volunteer. We volunteer because so often we find ourselves getting more by sharing, and our own lives are enriched in the process.

The volunteers are the first to break a sweat on the front line and the last on the list of accolades. Often they’re nameless and faceless, but they quietly make history and change the world for the better. I would ask the House to please thank them for all the volunteer work they do in our community.

ABORIGINAL SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

D. Plecas: Wednesday, May 20, is Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day. A social enterprise is a business that dir-

[ Page 8442 ]

ects its profits towards a social purpose, making life better for people and communities. Aboriginal people in British Columbia are leaders in social enterprise. They apply innovation and entrepreneurship as a tool for change and sustainable economic development.

Aboriginal social enterprises provide community services, skills training and employment opportunities for aboriginal people. They enrich lives, strengthen communities and demonstrate that a business devoted to doing good can be successful, profitable and build better futures.

Our government is committed to strengthening B.C.’s social innovation sector and helping social enterprise thrive. As an active member of the B.C. Partners for Social Impact, government works with leaders in the social innovation field to promote and support social innovation and enterprise throughout the province.

On May 20 we celebrate the vision and spirit of aboriginal social enterprises and the work they do. I encourage all members of this House to visit and support social enterprise in your community and go to hubcapbc.ca to learn more about B.C.’s social enterprise sector. Please join me in recognizing May 20 as Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day and help support the growth of social enterprise and the entrepreneurial legacy of aboriginal people in British Columbia.

CELEBRATE YOUR BREASTS

ART PROJECT BY NANCY PRATT

R. Austin: Terrace resident Nancy Pratt, a photographer and art curator, recently put together a show at the Terrace Art Gallery entitled Celebrate Your Breasts. Her motivation for this came from her own horrific experience using breast implants, which she had inserted in 1991 and which then, unbeknownst to her, leaked silicone and other chemical compounds into her body for 16 years, until she became so ill she almost died and is still suffering the consequences today.

The show had two parts. First, women from the northwest volunteered to use their bodies as a canvas for artists to paint beautiful works of art. Once completed, a photo was taken — from the shoulders down, obviously, to attain anonymity. These pieces of art were then framed in life-size form, creating a unique platform to celebrate the human body as well as the talent of the artists.

The second part of the show was graphic photos — and I mean graphic in a literal sense — of women from all around the world who have shared the disfigured and shattered remnants of their bodies once these devices have had to be removed.

Nancy is the first to admit that decisions to augment a breast are an individual’s choice, but she also believes that the motivation to contemplate such a procedure comes from societal attitudes and pressures that convince some women that their bodies are not worthy and lead to a diminished sense of self. Accordingly, her art show had women of all ages and body types, even three generations of one family, who all volunteered to demonstrate their love and acceptance of what nature and their genetic makeup has blessed them with.

Nancy has dedicated part of her life to warning women of the risks involved, especially when Health Canada has not even deemed these devices safe. They are under investigation, with a ten-year study to conclude in 2016. In the meantime, women are guinea pigs to see what happens when silicone and other chemical compounds, none of which have to be listed, by the way, are used to fulfil a dream — a dream which, in Nancy’s case, became a nightmare.

[1405]

ROYAL BRITISH COLUMBIA MUSEUM

J. Tegart: History is important. History helps us understand our identity as British Columbians and Canadians. The Royal B.C. Museum represents an invaluable resource that helps preserve British Columbia’s history. The museum creates engaging, inspiring opportunities for British Columbians, Canadians and visitors from around the world to enjoy learning about our province.

Founded in 1886, the Royal B.C. Museum today includes the B.C. Archives and several heritage properties. The museum holds approximately seven million artifacts and specimens and more than ten million archival records with its collection.

The Royal B.C. Museum is a great British Columbia success story. The museum has established an excellent track record of outstanding and popular exhibitions. I am pleased to note that the American Alliance of Museums recently named the Royal B.C. Museum as a winner in the 27th annual AAM Excellence in Exhibition Competition for Our Living Languages: First Peoples’ Voices in British Columbia.

The Royal B.C. Museum will continue its fine tradition of excellence this week with the opening of its newest exhibition, Gold Rush: El Dorado in British Columbia.

More than 650,000 people visit the museum each year. In addition to a dedicated staff of 115, the museum enjoys strong support from the community through the efforts of more than 500 volunteers and almost 16,000 members.

I trust all members of the House will join me in congratulating the Royal B.C. Museum — the management, staff, supporters and volunteers — for making British Columbia’s flagship museum a great place for people of all ages to learn about our history and to appreciate our unique multicultural heritage.

SUMMIT ON KIDNEY AND ORGAN

DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION

K. Conroy: On May 1 the Kidney Foundation of

[ Page 8443 ]

Canada, B.C. and Yukon branch, held the B.C. Kidney Transplant Consensus Summit in Vancouver. Over 360 kidney patients, family and caregivers travelled to the summit to discuss the urgent need for more transplants.

Set up in courtroom style, an eight-member jury, chaired by the Hon. Wally Oppal, heard experts support kidney transplantation as the most cost-effective option for dialysis patients and then weighed the evidence for and against three topics: should or shouldn’t British Columbians automatically be considered organ donors when they die, should people be paid to register for or be organ donors, and is it a systemic or a cultural barrier that results in lower organ donation in some ethnic communities.

After careful deliberations, the jury recommended the following: (1) that B.C. should consider presumed consent with safeguards that allow the individual to opt out, (2) that B.C. say no to the buying of organs and (3) that certain communities are overrepresented with kidney disease and underrepresented in kidney transplants and require more support to solve cultural and systemic barriers.

The Kidney Foundation is developing a plan to address the recommendations identified by participants in community conversations held across B.C. last year as well as those coming from the summit. Their hope is to:

(1) Make it easier to register as an organ donor. The expansion of access to the Service B.C. centres is a good start. People should be able to register in all government offices, with their family doctor or at local pharmacies.

(2) Increase awareness and understanding of the seriousness of kidney failure.

(3) Provide better support to both transplant recipients and living donors.

(4) Inform and discuss, through a provincewide conversation, views on presumed consent with an opt-out safeguard.

While 95 percent of British Columbians support organ donation, fewer than 20 percent have actually taken the time to register. William Stewart, an actor and co-host of the summit who is waiting for a kidney, said: “I was overcome with emotion at the summit. It was so inspiring to see hundreds of people from all over the province coming together to speak out for kidney patients on dialysis, like me. For the first time in a long time, I felt hope for a better future for me, my wife and my kids.”

[1410]

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

CONCERNS REGARDING LARRY BLAIN

AND PARTNERSHIPS B.C.

J. Horgan: Yesterday we were discussing in question period the conflict of interest that was unearthed with Michael Graydon, the former chair of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and we reviewed the conflict-of-interest rules. The minister assured us that a review was done.

According to the conflict rules for members of government boards…. This is what the document says: “A director should not use his position with the organization to pursue or advance their personal interests.” It seems a reasonable proposition. I think most British Columbians would be assured that government is doing their level best to ensure that insiders don’t get special treatment.

So it’s with some satisfaction, I suppose, that I bring another issue to the floor for the minister and the Premier to respond to. That’s one Larry Blain, who would be known to the government as the transition coordinator of the 2001 Liberal election victory and later went on to become the CEO, and later the chair, of Partnerships B.C.

My question to the Premier is: did Larry Blain comply with the rules, as I just articulated them, with respect to members of government bodies ensuring that they were not in a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this, first of all, about the organization, one that we are immensely proud of, Partnerships B.C., which has really set the standard in Canada for the advancement of 3P procurements. Let me further say this about Mr. Blain and the time that he spent involved with that organization, which was a key time. His contribution to the advancement of 3Ps was incredibly important. The success of those programs speak for themselves in terms of the countless projects that were delivered on time and on budget.

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

J. Horgan: A ringing endorsement from the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Blain’s career at Partnerships B.C. began when he was appointed the CEO in 2003. He remained in that position until the fall of 2010, when he stepped down as CEO and then became chair of the board. Then, five days later, Partnerships B.C. awarded a $95,000 contract to a company called Aardvark Insights.

Now, Aardvark Insights has one company director, and his name is Larry Blain. So that means, as I read it, that the chair of Partnerships B.C. and the board gave a contract to a contractor named Larry Blain. The chair of the board is also named Larry Blain. Perhaps the Premier or the Minister of Finance can clear up if that is, in fact, one and the same person.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are very clear guidelines in place that apply to Crown agencies, Crown corporations, that stipulate the circumstances under which procurements for both services and products must occur. We expect all agencies, Partnerships B.C. included, and

[ Page 8444 ]

all leaders within those agencies to comply with those guidelines.

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

J. Horgan: Partnerships B.C., in defending what, in my opinion, is the indefensible, said that Mr. Blain recused himself from board meetings whenever they were discussing issues that he might have been consulting for on behalf of Partnerships B.C. So we did an inventory of the contracts that were let to Mr. Blain and the projects that he was working for. It seems odd to me that he would have recused himself from more meetings than he actually chaired, because he had so much involvement in each and every one of the projects.

As the minister outlined, Mr. Blain really was Partnerships B.C. It was his idea. The Liberals created Partnerships B.C. because he said it was a good idea. They paid him a princely sum — if princes are paid modest millions, a princely sum — over the course of a decade, and then, to put a cherry on top, when he stepped down from his service to the people of British Columbia and moved from the executive suite into the chairman’s suite, he gave himself a contract. That rings conflict of interest.

To the Premier: is this the type of government that she’s going to continue to run, one where insiders can give contracts to themselves?

Hon. M. de Jong: The code of conduct and the expectations of the government are clear. They require all agencies and the leadership within those agencies to comply with the very strict requirements around the procurement process.

[1415]

The standard actually extends beyond that. Not only are the requirements complied with to ensure that there is no conflict but also that there not be any appearance of conflict. That is the standard that we expect of all agencies. That is the standard that we expect of all those who lead those agencies.

C. James: The Finance Minister said this is about appearances and appearances of conflict. Well, appearances of conflict are all over this entire story. As a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Larry Blain advised other Crown corporations on various projects. In fact, in late 2011 B.C. Hydro billed Partnerships B.C. for work done by Aardvark Insights on Site C. One of the directors of B.C. Hydro was — wait for it — Larry Blain.

So just to recap, Partnerships B.C., chaired by Larry Blain, contracted with Aardvark Insights, owned by Larry Blain, which did consulting work for B.C. Hydro, governed by Larry Blain. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how, possibly, conflict-of-interest rules could have been followed with these intertwined relationships?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may or may not be aware that the internal audit in the advisory services division conducted a review, as it has of a number of Crown agencies. It does so with the specific objective of ensuring that proper processes and procedures are being applied across the fold, including the procurement process.

Whilst one can suggest that by recusing and taking steps that are provided for that that is a means of ensuring that the procurement process is properly followed, the standard that we set and expect of agencies and the leadership within those agencies goes beyond that. There must not, not only not be a conflict; there must be no appearance of a conflict.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Let’s take a look at the B.C. Liberal standard. Between 2003 and 2010 Larry Blain was paid nearly $4 million as the CEO for Partnerships B.C. Then, as the chair, he billed $188,836 in fees and expenses. But that’s not all. Mr. Blain also served on the boards of the Transportation Investment Corporation, Powerex and B.C. Hydro, which paid him $264,000 for his services at the same time. So between director fees and expenses and Partnerships B.C. consulting contracts, Larry Blain received $621,000 from taxpayers over four years, all wearing different hats.

Can the Minister of Finance explain how Larry Blain was able to keep all of those various roles and reporting relationships appropriately separated?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it bears emphasizing that the roles performed by Mr. Blain and the remuneration that he received were all in the public domain. So I would caution or at least observe that it would be inaccurate and unfair to suggest today that somehow this represents some kind of a revelation.

I will further say this about the work that Mr. Blain undertook on behalf of the province at Partnerships B.C. I can go through a list that begins with the Interior heart and surgical centre, the Cancer Centre for the North, the Canada Line….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The examples of Partnerships-led projects that have set the standard for 3P procurement right across Canada, that ensured the taxpayers of British Columbia were well served, that saw those projects come in on time, on budget — sometimes ahead of

schedule and under budget — is lengthy and one that we are very proud of in British Columbia.

[1420]

[ Page 8445 ]

B. Ralston: There’s more. While wearing his Aardvark Insights hat and working as a consultant for Partnerships B.C., Mr. Blain also consulted for SaskBuilds, which is the Saskatchewan equivalent of Partnerships B.C. SaskBuilds paid Partnerships B.C. $150,000 to advise them on two long-term care and hospital projects, but it appears that Mr. Blain was also working as an independent consultant who obtained a contract directly from SaskBuilds for $18,000 on the very same projects.

The minister has spoken of no conflict and no appearance of conflict, so can he explain how Mr. Blain was able to work as chair of Partnerships B.C., as a contractor for Partnerships B.C. and a contractor with companies directly connected to Partnerships B.C. all at the same time?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let me say to the member and members opposite that I hope it’s no secret to them that the work undertaken by Partnerships B.C. garnered the attention of agencies right across Canada. We’re proud of that fact.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should think that members would celebrate the fact that, for example, Canada’s furthest-northern airport sought advice from Partnerships B.C. on how to advance that procurement and construct the new airport in Nunavut. I don’t think there’s any secret. We’re very proud of the fact that Partnerships B.C. undertook their work in a way that garnered positive attention from not just across Canada but elsewhere in North America, and that’s a testament to the success of the 3P model here in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: Clearly, the Minister of Finance doesn’t want to grapple with the essence of these questions. When you wear as many hats as Larry Blain, things get quite confusing. He was working for SaskBuilds as a contractor. He’s working for SaskBuilds as a Partnerships B.C. consultant and also serving as the chair of Partnerships B.C. He expensed trips to Saskatchewan in April, June and October of 2013 to Partnerships B.C.

The question to the Minister of Finance is multiple choice. Did Larry Blain bill Partnerships B.C. for his travel to Saskatchewan as (1) the chair of Partnerships B.C., (2) the president of Aardvark Insights, his company, contracted by Partnerships B.C. or as president of Aardvark Insights, consulting directly for SaskBuilds?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer and the commitment remain the same, and the expectation remains the same — that agencies, Crown agencies, operating in British Columbia will do so and uphold the highest possible standard with respect to conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. That is the expectation of the agencies themselves and those that lead them.

K. Corrigan: What the minister is demonstrating is having absolutely no understanding of the importance of the separation of public and private in British Columbia. You’d think that Partnerships B.C. would have gone to great lengths to make it clear how Mr. Blain’s contract work was separate from his role as board chair, but when you look at the contract we obtained under FOI, what stands out is how utterly vague it is.

In 2010 Partnerships B.C. gave a half-page description outlining the services they expected, and after that, nothing. They amended the contract five times to increase the total value to $219,000 but never described what was expected for that money.

Does the Minister of Finance consider it to be best practice that Mr. Blain was given a four-year-plus consulting contract with no description of the services to be provided?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what I have learned over the years is to be a little bit suspect about the documentation and the selective quotation from documentation that we are inclined to hear from the opposition in this chamber. I am more inclined to, at this stage, rely upon the findings of the internal audit review and report that was conducted with respect to Partnerships B.C. If the member has additional information that she wants to provide to me, I’m happy to look at it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I have seen that audit, and it expresses concern about conflict of interest. After the Michael Graydon conflict-of-interest fiasco, the minister pledged to ensure that other Crown corporations and government agencies were operating according to the highest standards. He pledged to ensure that the public would not be forced to question whether people in positions of authority were working in their own interests or in the public interest.

Can the minister tell the House how many other government agencies have made cozy contracts like Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, interesting that we learned in the supplemental question that the hon. member opposite has seen the report, or claims to have seen the report, and chooses to ignore the portions of the report that focus specifically on the issue that she has raised and indicate that those issues were generally well managed. The member can selectively try to present a story here.

I will repeat for her what I have said a few moments

[ Page 8446 ]

ago. The standard expectation of every single member of this government is that the highest code of conduct, as it relates to every feature of conducting public affairs, will be upheld by the agencies of government and by those who lead those agencies. That has been the case and will continue to be the case under this government.

REVIEW OF CHILD DEATH CASE

D. Donaldson: Isabella Wiens died while in care at 21 months of age on March 16, 2013. The postmortem revealed multiple bruises, healing fractures and swelling of the brain. At the time, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, through the provincial director of child welfare, decided a case review of the circumstances leading to Isabella’s death wasn’t necessary. The minister recently wrote to me saying that now, more than two years later, her ministry will conduct a review after all.

What could be so wrong in her ministry that it’s taken 26 months to get a full case review of the tragic, unexplained death of a child in care?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Any time a child dies it’s a tragedy. I cannot express how deep my sympathy is for the family and for all of the people who cared for and loved this child.

The member has been raising this tragic case in the House for four weeks now, despite knowing or perhaps just ignoring the fact that I cannot, by law, talk about the details of cases in this House. The member has also yet to request a meeting with me in regards to the case, a practice that a number of his colleagues and mine have seen fit to use to support the constituents they speak for.

That said, what I can reiterate for the member and for the other members of this House, as I did during estimates last week, is that the director of child welfare can decide to conduct a case review whenever new information is presented, whether that is through an investigative agency, a family member, the media or another source.

That is entirely appropriate, and it is, by design, in the legislation to ensure that child welfare decisions are made by those trained in the areas of social work and not influenced by external factors such as political or media pressure. That decision is not something that myself or my deputy minister participate in.

[1430]

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: New information two years later. If that’s true, then I invite the minister to share that info publicly outside this chamber after question period.

We now learn that another coroner’s report was just completed, two years after Isabella’s death. Let’s review. Isabella Wiens….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair needs to hear the question.

D. Donaldson: Let’s review: Isabella Wiens, 21 months old, dies while in care, cause undetermined. The minister’s provincial director decides a case review isn’t necessary. Two years later they reverse themselves. The ministry’s protocol investigation into the foster care home takes 16 months to complete when the ministry standard is 30 days. A coroner’s report takes a year to get done. A second coroner’s report is issued a year after that, just this month.

It’s no wonder that the children’s representative says the entire investigative system lacks rigour and misleading information was provided. This is a dereliction of duty with tragic consequences.

When will the minister finally be publicly accountable for her ministry’s decisions?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have nothing further to add to my previous answer, but I will be in my office after question period. I suggest that the member take that opportunity to speak with me about his concerns at that time.

J. Rice: Every time the minister and her government decide to release any information regarding Isabella’s death, it raises more questions than it answers. The latest coroner’s report is no exception. This is about a child dying in government care. The public needs to know that the government learned from….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please take your seat.

This House will only proceed when there is quiet.

Please continue.

J. Rice: The public needs to know that the government learned from what happened, and Isabella’s mother, Sara-Jane Wiens, needs answers. Why did the ministry wait two years to order a case review of Isabella’s death?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I have nothing further to add, but the member would be welcome to join us in my office after question period.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: The minister needs to stop dodging questions. The government has a duty to protect the children in its care.

[ Page 8447 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

J. Rice: And when the government fails in its duty, family members and the public deserve to know what happened. The children’s representative has called for a full investigation into what went wrong in this case.

Will the minister finally take some responsibility by ordering a full, public and transparent review of Isabella’s death and how her death was investigated?

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m not sure how much clearer I can be for this House that I will not break the law to satisfy the opposition’s political whims.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW PROCESS

N. Simons: Ten years after the Sherry Charlie review, and it’s clear that this government has not figured out how to do proper death reviews in order to learn as much as possible from what it can. It’s not the opposition saying that. In fact, to the minister, it’s the Representative for Children and Youth. She said to the MLAs: “I certainly do not want to be complicit in a process…that tells the public that there are reviews and processes in place when there are not.”

This is the government’s problem. What’s the minister going to do about it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The representative has indeed suggested that there are challenges and that she would like to see them reviewed. Frankly, the Children’s Forum is an opportunity for those sorts of conversations to take place. Considering that it’s been eight years since that forum’s inception, the ministry will be taking the lead on considering ways the forum can be improved, including the options to clarify both the forum’s mandate and direction.

GAMING POLICY CHANGES AND

ROLE OF LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

D. Eby: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Finance about Michael Graydon’s efforts to lobby the minister to increase profits for casino operators immediately before he left the B.C. Lottery Corporation to work for a casino operator.

To refresh the minister’s memory, Mr. Graydon lobbied for the change up until his departure from BCLC on January 29, 2014. The minister formally approved the change five weeks later, and the internal audit division completed its review of Mr. Graydon’s activities in July 2014. The minister told this House: “The internal audit division, by my recollection of the report, didn’t find anything untoward about that process.”

Can the minister tell this House on which page of the internal audit division’s report they discussed Mr. Graydon’s lobbying activities?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the opposition had more to say than just that yesterday. They concocted quite an interesting story about how all of this had taken place secretly and away from any scrutiny.

I didn’t say anything yesterday because I wanted to check. I wanted to check to make sure I was accurate. I suppose you could allege it was secret, because the very notice that the member referred to, upon which his whole theory appears to hinge, was published in that secret underground document called the British Columbia Gazette .

Yes, I suppose the member is right. It used codified language to indicate what was taking place by saying, “approving the amendment of the formulae to determine the amount of gaming revenue…as follows,” and then went into excruciating detail — again, in that secret underground document of March 13.

The problem with the member’s theory, which they advanced yesterday and apparently want to advance again today, is it is not rooted in any of the facts of the situation. A process was followed, a process that actually began in 2013. The gaming policy and enforcement branch received an application from the B.C. Lottery Corporation. They processed that application in the way that you would expect the regulator to do so. They came to a decision. That decision was finalized in precisely the way we would want this kind of thing to be undertaken.

[1440]

D. Eby: Now, the minister knows this was about the fact that we read that in the Gazette, and we filed a freedom-of-information request that we had to go to the Privacy Commissioner to get released. That’s the issue here.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Ministers.

Please continue.

D. Eby: The opposition filed a freedom-of-information request to the B.C. Lottery Corporation for all of Michael Graydon’s e-mails sent during the period that the Ministry of Finance found that he was in a conflict of interest.

We received the e-mail record, but one e-mail was missing. The e-mail that was missing was the December 10, 2013, e-mail in which Mr. Graydon lobbies the assistant deputy minister responsible for gaming to move more

[ Page 8448 ]

quickly to increase profits for casino operators — casino operators like his future employer, Paragon.

Madame Speaker: The question.

D. Eby: Can the minister explain why the B.C. Lottery Corporation didn’t disclose this critically important e-mail to the opposition? Given that there was no mention of it in the report, can he be sure that the internal audit division received a copy of this e-mail from the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let’s go through the chronology one more time. In 2013 the B.C. Lottery Corporation, fulfilling its obligation as the agency involved in this activity, presents an application, a business plan and advances that — which, yes, seeks to adjust some of the revenue-splitting aspects, expand the number of games, look at what the wager limits will be.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: That’s received. In the interim, Mr. Graydon leaves. I’ve already acknowledged — I’ve acknowledged it months ago; I’ve acknowledged it again yesterday — the results of the finding that that didn’t happen in the way that the government would have expected, that there was a conflict that the internal audit revealed and confirmed.

But the decision takes place after Mr. Graydon has departed. It is published in a document that the member only has to….

Madame Speaker: No props.

Hon. M. de Jong: That document, by the way, for a century or more…

Madame Speaker: No props, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …has been the place people go to look to for public policy in British Columbia.

What seems to have offended this member — and yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition — is that I didn’t tweet them in advance of the document. But I can promise them that when I have finally figured out how to tweet, they will be at the top of my list.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Routley: I have a petition signed by 15,339 concerned British Columbians. These are just some of those petitions. I have them all here on my desk.

“The petition of the undersigned, the electorate of the province of British Columbia, states that we, the electorate, call upon the Legislature to respect the environmental, economic and social integrity of the Shawnigan Lake community. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House exercise their authority and rescind the Environmental Appeal Board decision, Environmental Management Act permit PR-105809, Cobble Hill Holdings Ltd., which threatens our water source, our watershed and the economic and social health of our community.”

Respectfully, I suggest that it is critical that our government listen to these petitioners, as they very much cross all the political boundaries. It’s a bipartisan effort, and we want government to review this matter and to take action.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 11; in

Section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development; and in Committee C,

Section C, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

section 6 (continued) .

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister if he can say when this new

section would come into effect.

Hon. P. Fassbender: July of 2015.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister, then, moving away from the school planning councils to the board responsibility, the parent advisory council responsibility…. Perhaps this actually fits better under

section 8 to ask this question, but I’ll ask his indulgence.

[1450]

Will there be a gap between when the school plan, which is normally done by an annually prescribed date, is issued this year, when we’re in a change period moving from the school planning councils back to the board responsibility?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We anticipate — because there have been discussions with BCCPAC, with the school

[ Page 8449 ]

districts — that there won’t be a gap. We have talked about the contemplation of change without presuming anything until this bill passes. But we’re assuming that the ongoing consultation and work between the PACs and the school districts and the schools will continue.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask, then, about BCCPAC’s role in potentially influencing the development of this

section and the decision by government to get rid of the school planning councils that the former Education Minister brought into being in the early 2000s.

The minister has talked about consultation informing this. I want to know to what extent. There was a questionnaire that was sent to parents that attended one of the accountability framework meetings that I went to — in fact, the only one that I’m aware of that was organized prior to the introduction of Bill 11. None of the questions directly were about these kinds of areas that exist under the School Act or potentially what would be the new role for parent advisory councils.

I’m just wondering: where was the specific feedback? What kind of mechanisms were used to reach out to parents throughout British Columbia to determine that these legislative changes that are before us here this afternoon were, in fact, supported by a majority or by a significant number of parents that were consulted and engaged?

As I said yesterday, I’m only aware of a very, very limited engagement with a set of delegates who were at a BCCPAC conference in Nanaimo. They were asked three questions that were so general as to be…. In no way would they have prompted the kinds of legislative changes that we’re debating here this afternoon in Bill 11.

[1455]

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member opposite, this is not something that came as a surprise to BCCPAC. When the accountability framework committee was set up, BCCPAC, along with the other partners, were asked to appoint two people to be their representatives. One of the understandings, as it was with the other organizations, was that they would go back and communicate with their membership.

I know that Mr. Puddifoot, who is quite well known as a strong advocate for BCCPAC, was at all of those meetings, not only in person when there were meetings, but also in other discussions through conference calls.

There has been a lot of discussion. We also are aware that that information…. At least, we can only assume, because we didn’t track it for all the organizations, that communication went back out to their executive and their membership.

How many times they went out and did that, I have no knowledge of. Our team doesn’t. They were definitely directly involved, as were all the other stakeholder groups and the accountability working group that helped to design the new framework. BCCPAC was a part of it.

I also know that ministry representation was at the annual meeting that the member refers to. There was discussion that there was contemplation about possible changes that might be coming as a result of the work that was done.

So it was more than three questions, Mr. Chair.

R. Fleming: I recall an excellent presentation by a ministry representative at that conference, but I don’t recall it being anything about legislative changes.

I want to ask a different question here, just about the windup of school planning councils. We talked about this a little bit yesterday: that there are probably, out of the 1,600 schools in British Columbia, very few that ever had a school planning council. I don’t think there are a lot of people mourning for their demise, because they were never effective in the first place.

All of the things that were predicted about their duplicative nature and whether the participation and the work required of already overworked parents and school employees would make them successful at the very outset of the legislation….

My point being, though, and the minister said it yesterday…. He acknowledged that this was a statutory requirement, for every school to have a school planning council. It seems to me there was widespread lawlessness throughout the land in British Columbia and an extremely low level of compliance.

The minister said yesterday it was the board’s responsibility to enforce the statutory requirements. The legislation suggests that it was the province’s, the ministry’s responsibility ultimately, to ensure that there was a school planning council in every school in B.C. Anyway, it never happened, never came close.

Given that the school planning councils are now going to be wound up, does the minister have any plans to acknowledge those very few instances where surviving school planning councils continue to exist, to thank them for obeying the law or to at least recognize whatever contribution he thinks they may have made and that their services are no longer required and, in fact, they no longer exist in law?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I addressed this, I think, at some length yesterday. I absolutely acknowledge the hard work of parents throughout the province in their children’s education and the success of the strategic plans that are made in districts. Parents do contribute.

[1500]

What we are wanting to do and why we have been working so hard with BCCPAC and the other agencies is to ensure that as we move forward in the transformational agenda, we increase and engage with parents on an ongoing basis in the future outcomes for all students.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister about

section 6(a)(4). Well, it will be

section 8 that will be amend-

[ Page 8450 ]

ed to have new language on (a)(4) that now substitutes parent advisory councils for school planning councils.

I’m just curious about the language at the end of this new substitution. It allows the parent advisory council, through its elected officers, to “advise the board and the principal and staff of the school or the Provincial school,” in the case of a francophone school — and this is the part that I want to ask about — “respecting any matter relating to the school or the Provincial school.”

Why is that even included? This is a free country. We have rights to make views known. The parent advisory committee’s mandate, I think, is widely understood. Is there a reason why? Is this related to some kind of demonstrated problems in the field that this kind of language has to be made explicit? If the minister could explain why that’s included here.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In the current act, this language exists. The only change is removing the school planning council terminology. It was put in the act when it was originally done to ensure that parents know they have a right to speak to their school and to their principal or the district on any matter that they’re concerned about.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

R. Fleming: On

section 8, I wanted to just ask the minister, the changes here…. The first one that jumps out at me is that there doesn’t seem to be any description of what the plan content will be.

Previously, in the achievement plans of the district, there was at least a sense that there were a number of student performance indicators. It was allied with the district literacy plan and all those sorts of things. There were measurements that were put in place. It seems to me that, with this substitution, it’s silent on what the content of a school plan will now contain. If the minister could just maybe comment on why that appears to be the case.

[1505]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member is aware, and I’ve said previously in our discussions, there are guidelines that are being developed right now in concert with all of the stakeholders and the BCCPAC. Out of that there are a couple of things that will happen. We’re looking for provincial standards and guidelines that are agreed to by all of those parties.

Also, one of the important things, and why the legislation does not anticipate defining all of those things in legislation, is to provide flexibility in the future, as I said when I introduced the bill, to ensure that we have a flexible system where we can adapt to the changing needs of education as we move forward in concert and in partnership with our stakeholder groups.

R. Fleming: Well, I would just ask the minister…. There has to be some kind of template that has been developed. There must be a minimum of content that is at least contemplated and being discussed — of what the content of a school plan will be. I would ask him to outline that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have a document here. I think, subsequent to this, if the member would like to see it…. It’s not a document that we cannot release. It details meetings starting back in February of 2014. We met with the First Nations Education Steering Committee board of directors. We reviewed the current framework, and we talked to them about ways in which the framework could be improved to support student success. That work is ongoing.

We met in March, in June, July, September, October, November, December with B.C. mental health educators; with a presentation at the BCSTA trustee academy in December; in November — the meetings with BCSSA. In all of those the guidelines are being developed in concert with them as we speak. There’s a lot of work on various sections, and I don’t think I would necessarily want to try and read all of those.

Suffice it to say that there has been a significant number of meetings and conference calls with the provincial partner advisory committee, and B.C.’s K-to-12 accountability framework was a discussion, principals and vice-principals. All of those things are work that’s underway. Once that is completed, then of course we will be sharing those guidelines and finalizing them with all of the partner groups.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the

section here that says: “A board must make a school plan approved under subsection (1) available to the parents of students attending that school.”

I want to ask him…. There is no specificity about how that must be made available. What does available mean? Is there any format that it must be part of? There is nothing in here that outlines what “available to the parents” may be. It may take a huge onus on their part to find something that is considered available.

[1510]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The wording that is here is the same as the wording in the current legislation.

Again, I am aware, as are our staff, that schools post their plans on their website. They discuss those with the PAC. They have meetings as they’re developing the plans. When they’re completed, if there are parents who don’t have access to a website, we know that they can go to the school and ask for a hard copy of that document.

We are, again, looking for every possible flexibility for schools to be able to ensure that parents who want access, who want to see the information, have access to it.

R. Fleming: Well, the language isn’t quite the same here, and that’s obviously why it’s being amended.

[ Page 8451 ]

One of the changes I’ve noted, though, is that previously, in the School Act, there was a requirement that by a date set by the board, the document — now called the school plan — had to be made available. That was a responsibility of the board.

It doesn’t say what that date must be, but obviously the minister, I would think, could imagine that there are some dates that would be relatively useless to parents, because it doesn’t influence their ability to make a decision. Christmastime, for example, might not be a good time of year, or that sort of thing. One would think a set date would probably be ideally around September.

Now there’s nothing around dates that must be set by the board in terms of parents being able to, I suppose, hold them accountable to having a school plan made available to them. I’m just wondering why that language was struck.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the teams are developing the guidelines, one of the things that’s clear is that, because the previous date of July 15 no longer exists with the changes in the legislation, we’re working with the schools, with the districts and with the PAC organization to develop new guidelines.

What will be clear is that there will be a fixed date for the district plans to come into the ministry and then backing up from there. We haven’t established a date yet, and again, through the legislation, the flexibility is there for the guidelines to meet realistic needs on the part of the districts, the schools and the parents.

[1515]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister about potential administration costs that may be additional to school boards by this change, to get his thoughts on that.

The previous model, which didn’t work and I think was discredited — and the proof of that is that it’s being removed in the bill — was touted as a voluntary effort that would leverage parent resources and such to create the school plans. That body is now done away with. I think in reality it was always principals that the work fell to, to create the school plan. It may well be that the school plans that the board is now responsible for will again fall on the shoulders, primarily, of the principal to develop.

But there could, theoretically — and I would like to get a government view on this — be an increase in costs where there may have been school plans that were developed by, largely, volunteers that now have to be done by professional staff, which are defined as the board. So the district board office may incur additional costs to be able to comply with the way the School Act will now be written after these amendments are passed. I’m just wondering if there has been any quantification of whether there could be potential costs associated with that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In all the consultation that we’ve had with all of the parties, there is no concern about increased costs. As a matter of fact, there is a suggestion that the process will be much more flexible and, therefore, could result in less administrative burden.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Yeah. That sounds like what the opposition did say ten years ago.

I would like to actually let this

section pass and ask about

section

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

R. Fleming: We talked a little bit yesterday about the superintendents of achievement. There were up to four of them at one point in time. Those positions are being done away with. We’ll get an opportunity later in the bill to ask some specifics about that.

In terms of the superintendent of appeals that these amendments deal with that substitute that for what were called superintendents of achievement, I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why

section 11.1(0.1)(

b) would allow him to “appoint, by order, an individual who is not appointed under the Public Service Act.” Yesterday he alluded to the fact that maybe the superintendent of appeal, this provincewide position, would be a contractor. Perhaps the answer lies there. I want to maybe ask him specifically why the clause is written in this kind of way and what kind of individual that might apply to who is not appointed under the Public Service Act.

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As I said yesterday, very clearly, because the scope for this particular individual is potentially much narrower than it was under the superintendents of achievement previously, we are looking at what is the most appropriate model. If the individual is not a member of the public service and not being hired under those guidelines but under contract, we will maintain the flexibility of making that appointment based on those criteria.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister, then, about having an individual who’s not appointed under the Public Service Act. Would that mean that this would be an individual, potentially, who has not taken an oath of the public service in regards to a whole host of responsibilities they have to the Crown and to the privacy of citizens? I’m just trying to understand the implications of having somebody perform this function who’s not covered by the Public Service Act provisions.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Because we haven’t actually appointed someone in that role under the new section, what is clear is…. If that person is an employee of the public

[ Page 8452 ]

service, of course they would fall under all of the guidelines as a public service employee. If the person is not — the

section now allows the minister to appoint — there would be very clear specification in the letter of appointment and the contract that was given to that individual that they must meet all of those same guidelines. So there would be no opportunity for anyone to vary from the guidelines because that would be spelled out.

[1525]

R. Fleming: I think we learned yesterday that in most years there are very few appeals that are heard. So this will not be a…. I think the minister said yesterday this may potentially be a part-time position. However, I think it’s fair to say that the appeals that would be heard are very sensitive, involving issues that have gone unresolved all the way up to the superintendent of a district.

I’m just wondering, therefore, given the seriousness of some of these issues…. These are protracted issues that require investigations and adjudications, if you like, to try and reach a resolution. It seems to me that it would be important to have somebody that is invested and accountable under the Public Service Act and reportable directly to the Ministry of Education — not by a contractual arrangement, which may have some drawbacks in that regard.

Maybe to help me better understand that, I would ask the minister to give an indication of some of the typical appeals that have been heard recently by the superintendents of achievement previously that will now be heard by the superintendent of appeals.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Clearly, there are matters and there are appeals regulation, and they’re under a particular section. A decision that would be considered for an appeal relates to a student’s expulsion, relates to a student’s suspension from an educational program. If no other educational program is provided by the board, it requires the student, as a disciplinary measure, to complete all or part of an educational program by distributed learning.

There are a number of criteria, and I’m sure the member can avail himself of that. Again I will say that any person who is contracted by the ministry to deal with this or who may be a public service employee is governed by the same statutes and protection of privacy of information, no matter whether they’re contracted or whether they are an employee of the public service.

In the case of someone who’s contracted, that individual would have to have significant credentials within the educational field to perform that function and would sign an undertaking that they will be governed by all of those appropriate legislative and regulatory requirements.

[1530]

R. Fleming: Again, just to help me understand. I think yesterday the minister said there are currently no superintendents of achievement. So even before they’re struck out of existence with the passage of Bill 11, that has essentially been destaffed.

However, I am aware, I think from our estimates debate, that Mr. Rick Davis, who’d previously retired from the ministry, is working for the Ministry of Education on a contract until June. Now, is it the case that he’s a contracted superintendent of achievement and after Bill 11 — and presumably its passage — he will be become the superintendent of appeals on contract? His contract, I think, runs until June. Is this clause essentially being written about a particular situation — not necessarily an individual — that exists now that is contemplated to exist after Bill 11?

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, the legislation is not written to presume anything in terms of any individual or current function. When and if the legislation passes the House, we will then go through a transparent and open process in whatever we decide to move into. If it’s a full-time appointment, then that would be done under the purview of the deputy minister and his responsibilities. If it is a contract, it would be done through an open and transparent tendering process with a clear job description and qualification requirements.

R. Fleming: Just curious about appeals because these have been going on for…. There has been a mechanism for these types of appeals to be heard, to be advanced to the Education Ministry, prior to the creation of superintendents of achievement. I’m just wondering whose responsibility those were in the ministry prior to that position.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member is aware that prior to 2008 there was no mechanism in the ministry for appeals, so there was no one in the ministry that handled that function. Since that time, because of requests that came through the parents in the province that they wanted ministry involvement, where parents could ultimately go to an authority beyond the board….

[1535]

Prior to 2008 the only appeal was to the board of education. Having been a trustee, I sat in on two of them that I recall, when I was a trustee, as a board member. One parent group that I remember was dissatisfied with the decision, but there was no opportunity for them to take it any further unless they wanted to go into the court system and file a court action.

Because of that request, the superintendent of achievement…. There was one individual in the ministry who took training in the area of appeals and adjudication that fulfilled that function up until now. That function will, as we’ve already discussed, remain within the ministry, whatever form it takes once we move forward.

R. Fleming: I was surprised, actually, to hear yesterday,

[ Page 8453 ]

when we were talking about the superintendent of appeals position being created, that the minister suggested that it could be, indeed, a very part-time job. In fact, in some years only four appeals are heard.

Considering how much the minister has been talking on the public record lately about administrative savings and, of course, aiming his finger at the school districts of the province who are, in fact, very administratively lean…. His own district in Surrey has a 2 percent overhead, just 2 cents on the Education dollar used for administration. I would suggest that in the spirit of leading by example, perhaps we could just make a further amendment to this

section of Bill 11 — I would ask him to consider it — to not have a superintendent of appeals at all.

To hear four appeals — there must be a skill set that the deputy minister or a number of assistant deputy ministers would already have in the ministry. Instead of contemplating contracts to unknown individuals who may or may not be accountable under the Public Service Act, give it to a professional civil servant that already reports to him and save the taxpayers some money. Show the school boards: “Administrative savings isn’t just something I order you to do. I found a way to do it myself by getting rid of a position that may be entirely unnecessary.”

R. Lee: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the House just now is a group of 12 students with their teacher Mr. Mike Pedersen and some parents from Burnaby North Secondary School. Burnaby North Secondary is the largest secondary school in Burnaby and one of the largest in British Columbia. The school’s advanced placement program and its Vikings marching band are two of the best in Canada.

My family has a deep connection to this school. I have two sons who graduated and a daughter graduating this year from Burnaby Secondary. So would the House please help me welcome all the visitors from Burnaby North Secondary School.

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m happy to answer that. I think the member, in estimates, was well aware that the ministry has done yeoman’s work in terms of increasing the efficiency in the ministry, providing the kinds of administrative efficiencies that we’re asking everyone else to do. As the minister, I stand here absolutely satisfied with the work that’s been done in the ministry over the last couple of years to achieve that.

That said, in this particular case the deputy minister…. As we move forward, we’ll be reviewing the process. We’ll review the need and who is best qualified to fill that. That’s why the wording is as flexible as it is, so that if the deputy minister makes a recommendation to take a particular route that is the appropriate one and reflects the commitment that the ministry already has to be lean and mean, as I refer to it quite often, I know he will do that.

R. Fleming: I’d actually thank the minister for that answer, because it showed a certain open-mindedness, and that’s a good thing, but the problem is that we’re quite at an advanced stage of potentially passing something into law.

[1540]

To hear that he’s got a little bit of ambiguity about creating a brand-new position called the superintendent of appeals and would consider whether it’s even necessary, leads me — while being honoured to have been listened to in the perspective I just shared — to wonder why the minister hasn’t given the courtesy of sitting down and meeting with elected school trustees, who’ve written him from every part of the province, and through their provincial association, to similarly ask the minister to pause and to consult them, as they should have been before the legislation.

That’s how you make better laws: by doing the work and getting the feedback from your education partners at the front end. I’ve just advanced something here in committee stage debate, and I got a relatively open answer from the minister, but he’s still going to move ahead and enshrine a position that may be unnecessary, by his own admission, in law. So we may be coming back and amending that at a later time. It’s important to get the law right on the first go. We’ve seen that time and time again.

I would seek leave to make an introduction at this point in time, with the indulgence of the Chair.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: I recognize a couple of faces in the gallery who’ve joined us today, some elected trustees from school district 61. We have Deborah Nohr here with us, and Rob Paynter. I would welcome them for joining us here this afternoon in the House.

Debate Continued

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister just to explain the rationale for a

section that appears to give the minister the ability to dispose much more easily of land that is held as an asset by 60 different school boards through-

[ Page 8454 ]

out the province of B.C. This section, I think, while brief in terms of its amendment, perhaps has some more significant implications than many of the other things we’ve been discussing thus far in committee stage debate. Maybe the minister could just explain the rationale and the implications for this change.

[1545]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, this

section — I have had a number of discussions and feedback from school districts.

Let me make it very clear. Currently under the act the minister cannot order a board to dispose of property. That is in the purview of the board, and that does not change in the new act. The words “Management of schools and property” — that’s the management of those schools and properties as it relates to any of the services to maintain those properties, to maintain the schools under the shared-services initiative.

Again, as we move forward in consultation with districts, under the regulations there will be clarity in terms of what that does and does not mean. But it is very clear — and I stand here clearly saying — in other sections of the act that the minister will not have increased powers to order boards to dispose of property.

R. Fleming: Well, just reading the language that has changed here, we will go from….

Section 74(1) of the School Act says very clearly: “A board is responsible for the management of the schools in its school district and for the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of all property owned or leased by the board.” Now it will read, “Subject to the orders of the minister, a board is responsible for the management of the schools…”— etc.

That, to me, sounds like a significant change. It sounds to me that subject to the orders of the minister, which can change at any moment…. An order, for example, that now a particular board is not responsible for certain properties or certain management responsibilities of their properties that are owned or leased by them…. That’s a huge difference.

Right now the minister in legislation, in a sense, is supposed to be a bit of a gatekeeper in terms of school districts who want to sell property. They have to approach him, and he must sign off on property disposal. Now, as I read this section, the situation is reversed. The minister can now order — “Subject to the orders of the minister” — school districts to sell or dispose of properties that they own or lease.

That’s what the concern is here. We know this government has taken the lid off school closures before, and hundreds of them were put through in this province. That’s the experience over the last decade. Now we have amendments that look to be going back at this.

There are a lot of disagreements that the minister has had, some very publicly, with different districts in the province — for example, districts that have had enrolment declines and have “capacity” in a number of their school buildings. The minister has taken a very public view that school districts like that should dispose of and sell those properties.

Now, the communities that those elected trustees represent disagree. They have their own business case for managing those properties, maybe as revenue-generating properties or to hold them long term because they have municipal planning communications that suggest they will be needed.

This, to me, looks like a way to resolve that ongoing dispute in the minister’s favour over objections and, so far, refusals by school districts, who have the clear responsibility now under the School Act to administer and manage their properties. That will be changed, subject to the orders of the minister.

I would ask him again…. He’s claiming that none of this will change. There’s no distinction — which, of course, begs the obvious question: why make the change at all? Why not keep the status quo language, which is very clear? If his intention is to change nothing, then change nothing.

I would suggest, and school districts are suggesting, that this is a very significant change that gives power for the minister…. Subject to his orders — a complete reorientation of how asset management has been done in British Columbia.

[1550]

That’s a problem for a number of reasons, not only because of the upset in the balance of powers and responsibilities that the ministry has and the school district has and the changes in capital asset management in B.C. It’s a problem in terms of the historical development of how these properties became acquired by many school districts.

I know my own best, but those were city properties. In Victoria, where the city is older than the country of Canada and the province of British Columbia joining Confederation, that was the original owner of school district properties. It has evolved over time. Those assets have become, as we’ve created a modern School Act with delegated responsibilities to school boards, their clear responsibility. This seems to be taking away decades of clear lines of responsibility between the ministry and between school districts.

Again, I would go back to the minister and ask him this question, simply, because I’ve said a lot already. The simple question is: if his contention is that there is no change in this amendment, then why change it at all? Because you’ve got the backs up of school districts right around British Columbia. They believe, as I do, that this could signal a new era where the minister takes control of properties in school districts and makes a series of orders over their objections. He has the tiebreaker in all instances.

If they’re incorrect, then why won’t he prove it and just keep the status quo language as it’s read under the School Act, which is very clear, and forgo having a con-

[ Page 8455 ]

fusing amendment that has caused the concerns that I’ve outlined?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is not correct, and the wording is clear. It has clearly been defined on the shared services of the management of the properties and the assets in the sense that I’ve described. That is the intent. That will be the subject of ongoing discussions with school districts.

Right now in the existing act it says: “Subject to the orders of the minister, the board may dispose of land or improvements, or both.” Again, that “subject to the orders of the minister” is no different in this new section. I again repeat that the member is not correct, nor is it the intent of the ministry or the minister to change the current practice.

R. Fleming: Well, I detected that the minister was parsing things there. He said that there won’t be any change in that the school board will have to go to him for ministerial permission to dispose of properties. True. That’s not what we’re looking at here. We’re looking at the new powers given to him to order school boards to dispose of properties.

Currently, it’s one way. He has to give permission. He’s supposed to be the gatekeeper over properties being disposed of, because previously, the public interest, as commonly interpreted by the minister, was to make sure that schools didn’t frivolously get rid of properties.

Now, and knowing the tendencies of this government and the context of this legislation, it’s going the other way around. It will be the minister who can have the power to order school districts to dispose of property. As I read this and as every district has read it…. He’s got correspondence from the BCSTA. These are the opinions of legal staff, briefs prepared by their legal counsel, known to him.

We’re at the point right now where we’re discussing it. “Subject to the orders of the minister” seems to me the clearest change possible that I can understand — that now it’s not the board that’s responsible. It’s subject to the orders of the minister that the board is responsible. That is a change, and I’d like the minister to describe how that will operationally change responsibility for the management of these types of properties and their custody and maintenance?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, this is about shared services. It’s about those issues on the management and the administrative work around properties, whether it be the property or the assets of the school district. It has nothing to do with the disposal of property. I’ve said it. I will repeat it, and I’m not going to answer that question again.

[1555]

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can define, then…. Custody, maintenance and safekeeping responsibilities that in the old School Act were the responsibility of the board will become, in the new, amended School Act, subject to the orders of the minister — the responsibility of the board. Tell me, then — custody, maintenance and safekeeping, those functions — how those responsibilities will be impacted by the change here?

I can only imagine that the accounting profession will have to, at the very least, make a note, when it looks at the balance sheet of an individual school district and looks at their capital assets, that the ownership and control of these properties that they own is clear, except it’s subject to the orders of the minister. How could they not have to say that this independent financial body, a school district, has control over all of these assets, but ultimately it’s subject to the orders of the minister that they enjoy that control and administration of these properties?

Again, is there no advice that he’s received from any of his own senior staff, those who were in the legislative drafting, that explains what this change is? He’s trying to minimize and diminish it and say it means nothing. It does. It means something. Otherwise he wouldn’t be doing it. I want to understand that this afternoon.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, one last time. It is about shared services. It is about the maintenance of properties and assets within the responsibility of the districts and looking at opportunities for shared-services efficiencies. That is the intent. That is what has been said. And that is what is intended in this change in the act.

The issue of the disposal of property still remains as it does in the current act. It is under the purview of the school districts, and it will remain there.

R. Fleming: Can I ask the minister, then, what the legal definition of “custody” is, in his understanding?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Staff will be happy to provide the legal definition of the word “custody.” I don’t have that at my disposal, but I can assure the member that the legal folks in the ministry and within government reviewed this, and that is a legal term, and they’ll be happy to provide a definition for the member.

R. Fleming: Well, I would ask the minister, then, how long it would take to make that definition available, because I think it’s pretty important, before we look at potentially passing this

section on the way to passing the bill, that that be well understood.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t know the answer to that. Suffice to say, as I’ve said, that the legislation was gone over by all legal counsel within government, and the wording stands.

R. Fleming: My point is that the wording and the legislation was not gone over with superintendents, secretary-treasurers of school boards, the B.C. association of school

[ Page 8456 ]

board officials. Any of the stakeholders that now have an interest in this legislation were not allowed to view the legislation prior to…. We now have significant education partners — stakeholders, if you like — that have zeroed in on this change with great concern.

I think the minister can give that assurance, but he wouldn’t allow independent sets of eyes, the advanced consultation of others — who, in fact, administer the properties now — to provide him their own opinion because they were unaware that he had a legislative agenda in this regard to make a change like this.

Maybe I would ask him, then: what is his understanding of the definition of “custody,” until we can get a proper legal opinion from his government?

[1600]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, and I’ve said it a number of times, there has been significant discussion with school districts, administrators in school districts, on the issue of shared services and what would be encompassed in that. As we move forward, the genesis of the legislation is to provide the flexibility and not to be prescriptive at this stage. I’ve been very clear on the intent of the legislation and the intent of government as it relates to the legislation, and that stands.

R. Fleming: This is just really not how law-making should happen. We’ve had the difference of opinion around consultation yesterday. Consultation in the minister’s mind means notification. That’s how the president of the Teachers Federation was given advance notice — “consulted,” in his view — of Bill 11, a 15-minute advance warning — two days for the B.C. School Trustees Association.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In the context of shared services — and we’ll move on to the debate around his

interpretation that this is only about shared services — it’s still significant. To say that those people sitting at the table, the provincial steering committee on shared services or any of the discussion groups that have participated in shared services, were consulted specifically about how they would move from a voluntary system — a discussion-based table around shared services that looked at regionally based opportunities, primarily, some provincially based — to something that is now controlled by the minister…. So it’s no longer voluntary but compulsory; no longer regional — centralized and provincial. They were never consulted on that.

In fact, some of the tier 3 recommendations in the Deloitte report that I can remember — which were rejected out of hand for a whole number of reasons, including that there are contracts signed by regional boards relating to maintenance services, for example — were rejected. There was no interest in there, there was no perceived savings, and there was a whole lot of potential conflict that has caused a lot of dysfunction at the provincial level that they didn’t wish to import at the district level. They were not inspired by the provincial leadership in that regard, and they rejected it.

Now, if I’m reading this correctly — “subject to the orders of the minister” — we go from a voluntary, mutually beneficial system where you basically trade business cases between the district and the province or whoever the set of partners are, to it being on the minister’s desk — minister’s orders for shared-service agreements.

That’s a significant change. I wonder if the minister would agree if my

interpretation, as I’ve just described it, is correct. We’ll wait for a legal definition on “custody” to see whether it pertains to all fixed assets as well.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member keeps making the same speech, and I’ll keep giving the same answer.

It is very clear that we will be working with the districts, with their teams, as we have already. It is totally incorrect to suggest that there was no discussion about the potential of mandatory orders by the minister on those things that are deemed to be in the public interest of a provincial nature.

That does not suggest that there isn’t a process that leads up to a decision like that. I clearly articulated that yesterday, and I’m not going to repeat what I’ve said a number of times already.

[1605]

R. Fleming: The minister keeps talking about working with school districts and school partners. This legislation means that he can keep working with them, but he can also work without them, because he will have the final say. Is that not what “subject to the orders of the minister” means legally? I’d like to have that opinion here at this stage of the debate, not to say that it’s not available.

I don’t know how many people are in the ministry staff. I don’t know where the legislative drafters are behind the TV screens, but surely, that can be available to this debate in this Legislative Assembly, or we’ve got a bigger problem on our hands.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have said that we will provide the common definition that may be available. We are committed to shared services. The member refers to the fact of what might be. It’s hypothetical.

My commitment, the ministry’s commitment and the government’s commitment is to work with our stakeholders to ensure that the best practices that can be done, whether they exist already or new ones that may come into force in the future, will be debated and talked about with all of the stakeholders. I’ve made that commitment. I’m not going to repeat it again.

R. Fleming: Well, as I read it, the change in this section,

section 12 of Bill 11, comes up again in

section 16,

[ Page 8457 ]

where “a board may enter into an agreement only with a designated service provider” designated by the minister. So this is sort of the one-two punch here. Subject to the orders of the minister, everything related to the management of schools, physical buildings in a school district — “for the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of all property owned or leased by the board” — becomes subject to his orders. Then later on in the amendments, it’s subject to his orders that can only be in an agreement with a designated service provider determined by the minister. Am I reading that correctly?

It is his determination now — as opposed to previously, where you could reach an impasse where a school district would disagree with the minister and it would remain there unless there was a mutually agreed-upon solution. Now it’s subject to the orders of the minister that all of these things related to the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of the property are subject to those orders. Am I correct in reading that at the very least?

[1610]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yesterday I spoke to this, and I used the example of MyEducation B.C. It is very clear that the intent of this

section is to ensure that when there is a clear case, like MyEducation B.C., for a mandatory designation of a service provider, ultimately the minister has the power to break any impasse that might exist. But that will happen in very, very few circumstances, but without that linkage to that, then there would be no opportunity to realize the shared-services efficiencies that everyone has said we want to work together to find.

R. Fleming: Well, I think that’s an interesting example that the minister has provided again, because yesterday we talked about MyEducation B.C. coming on the heels of BCeSIS and that it was done without these legislative changes. Now he’s arguing that it’s an example of why this legislation is required. Interesting.

I want to ask the minister just again about the word “custody” here and maybe ask him to follow up with an example. If, under the new School Act as amended by this bill, Victoria High School is hereby ordered by the minister to surrender custody to an entity — the minister now wants the custody, maintenance and safekeeping of this particular property to be given to, I don’t know, a private language college or some other entity — is that an order that the minister will be able to make? Or any other school that he deems to be no longer a board responsibility to determine in the manner specified by what’s currently

section 74 of the act.

That will change as I read this, and I wonder if he can comment on what the scope of the orders he can make will be under this amendment.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve described the intent. I’m not going to get into speculation.

R. Fleming: Well, again, we need to know what custody means. So I would urge the minister, with all of the available resources of the provincial public service known to him, to supply that.

My submission here is that this is a significant change. “Subject to the orders of the minister” is so broad and so vast. As it’s written here at the front end of the existing language about what is now currently a clear board responsibility, it will be amended to make it subject to ministerial order — his responsibility, potentially, in the instances that he deems of his own interest.

That’s a brand-new change. I think we need to know exactly…. I think the minister has to explain. He doesn’t need to use my hypotheticals, but he at least has to give the parameters, which seem to be unlimited, as to what the orders of the minister may be in regards to property assets that are held by school districts currently.

Hon. P. Fassbender: My answers are clear. I’m not going to repeat myself.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister when he will have a precise legal definition of “custody,” of “property” available for debate here at committee stage.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As soon as it’s available.

[1615]

R. Fleming: As soon as it’s available. Is that potentially after the debate is over?

Hon. P. Fassbender: My answer is clear.

R. Fleming: Oh, we are getting into some very interesting territory here that says a lot, beyond the clauses of the bill that’s before us, about Liberal law-making in the province of British Columbia. Unbelievable. It doesn’t involve anyone at the front end. And even when it’s in mid-process, it’s not informed by a professional civil service that’s available to him.

Where are the legislative drafters who wrote these amendments? Why can’t they give him an

interpretation to inform the committee? These are legitimate questions about what could be very significant changes in a new regime of what property management of schools looks like in British Columbia. It’s his obligation, his responsibility as a minister to supply that to the debate.

If he needs a recess, we’re perfectly happy to do that. But I think it needs to be supplied now.

The Chair: While the member may like it now, it’s up to the Chair as to whether we recess or not.

V. Huntington: I won’t ask the minister to repeat some of his comments. Hopefully, they will provide some level of comfort to the school boards. However, I think that

[ Page 8458 ]

he will know, as has been mentioned earlier, that there is a great deal of discomfort out there among the school trustees and the boards in the province.

Much of it, if not all of it, has to do with how these amendments came to be. They perceive it as not being a thorough consultation. They perceive it as just basically throwing what they thought was a co-governance agreement out the window.

While the comments that the minister has made may go some way to quieting some of these concerns, I have been asked to request of the minister how he intends to go forward with consultation. What will it look like? When will it occur? Will it be thorough? Will the school boards enter into full explanatory discussions with the ministry on what these regulations might look like and how they may affect them?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I’ve indicated that the discussions on shared services have been undertaken at least for the last year and a half already with school districts. There are no clear guidelines as to which shared services, because that is being worked on with school districts.

I’ve stood in this House not only during second reading debate but also in committee and said very clearly that the committee that was formed of representatives, trustees and administrators throughout the province, with the deputy minister and his team, will continue. No regulations will be brought into place until that process continues and we come to some clear regulation definition of what that would look like and how it would operate.

So there is going to be a period of time. What I can’t do is specify how long that’s going to be, because it depends how long the work will continue. But the commitment on behalf of the government is that we will continue — and I use the word “continue,” because it’s already begun — to work on shared services, moving forward, in the best interests of the districts, of the students in that district, so that every resource that can be dedicated to the classroom is done.

I can’t make it any clearer than that. I appreciate there are, perhaps, questions about that process. All I can say — and I have said this to a number of trustees — is that the number of discussions that have taken place already, the comments by the deputy minister at the most recent BCSTA AGM and the comments of the ministry staff who head up the shared-services committee and have been working with the district….

That work is going to continue. That’s a commitment. I stand by that commitment, and I know that as we move forward, we’ll find the path together. There may be rare instances — and I suspect they will be rare — where the minister may have to make a mandate on a particular issue. But I’m not even going to speculate on what that might be, because maybe there won’t be any. Maybe it will all be done by consensus. That’s my hope.

[1620]

I also believe that if there is a clear business case that something should be done that is in the best interests of the provincial taxpayers and of the districts, that decision will be made at that time.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that answer. But there obviously is a real issue out there with what the level of consultation has been, whether it’s specifically in shared services or whether it’s concerns about the sale of assets and how that might proceed or whether there are changes to that process — whether revenues are going to go back into general revenue or whether they’re going to stay with school boards — and what that permissive dialogue is.

For instance, how these consultations take place: is there a disconnect between what the minister and his staff feel is the consultative forum versus what the actual school boards and school trustees think is happening? Is there any room for some dialogue between the parties to perhaps create a more fulsome consultation process that each party really understands the other to agree with? Is there any room for some examination of where the consultation is falling down. It’s obviously not working the way the minister thinks it is and the school boards want it to.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The deputy has established a sector advisory committee that has met once already. It’s going to be meeting in the next couple of weeks. The role of that group…. It represents every stakeholder in the province in the education system. They will be meeting again, and one of the main functions of that committee is to talk about process, moving forward, and how consultations on any of these initiatives will be done.

Other than the BCTF, which we have a separate process with, of course, all of the other partner groups are part of that committee. We will continue the deputy’s commitment to the first meeting, which is that this committee will have a very significant role in crafting where we go, moving forward.

I appreciate that there may be questions on the part of new trustees. We’ve just come through a municipal election. There are many trustees who perhaps weren’t on the board. I don’t know how their superintendents or secretary-treasurers have communicated back, but I know there has been at every level significant discussions around this.

The commitment in looking for shared services and administrative savings is to free up as many dollars as possible to be invested in student learning outcomes and in the classroom. That is the intent. That is what we are wanting to do, and everyone understands that that’s the goal.

V. Huntington: If the special advisory committee could really, seriously take a look at how consultation is working

[ Page 8459 ]

and where the gaps are…. There are gaps. Something’s not working properly, and if the ministry thinks it is, there’s a problem. Maybe it’s with the school board and the school board trustees. I don’t know. But there is a gap here.

I’ll start looking at it from my end, too, to see if there’s a hole there that is somehow not being filled. Is it not being filled in communication with school district staff and their boards? Is it a dysfunction between the ministry and school districts?

[1625]

There’s something wrong here that, for the benefit of this province, needs to be looked into very seriously. I know your deputy is somebody that will take that job seriously, and if anybody can find an answer, I think he can.

I will take that back to my board. I have a very experienced board, and they are very worried. It is not a board filled with newcomers. There’s one newcomer. Most of them have been on the board for years, and they are a worried board. And they are not a partisan board, or so they say.

At any rate, there’s an issue here, and I’m trying very hard to convince the minister that it has to be resolved. It’s not necessarily his fault, the ministry’s fault or the board’s fault. There’s a gap here that’s got to be bridged somehow.

For instance, the distrust is so strong right now that they want consultations or would like to understand what the minister means by “provincial interest,” by “the public interest.” When the minister says, “I can make an order in the public interest of a provincial nature,” they want to know: what does that mean exactly? How does the minister define “public interest”? How does this ministry define it? They want to shape this so they can understand what these new authorities are in relation to their traditional authorities.

I think everybody sees that movement forward and efficiencies are absolutely critical to going ahead in a fiscally responsible manner. But to ignore satisfying these hard-working individuals that their mandate is not being pulled out from under them, I think, is partially, if not wholly, the ministry’s obligation here.

With that, I’ll run and meet with the Speaker, who’s been calling me for the last half-hour.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Before the member has to leave, the sector advisory council is made up of the heads of all of the organizations, including the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. One of their first functions is to do exactly what the member has said. Are there gaps in communication? How are those filled? What subjects will be discussed?

We have the shared-services advisory group that’s working as well. That input from that group will go to the sector advisory committee and back, because they may identify gaps, as the member has suggested.

These are all new processes that have been in place. I just said that the sector advisory committee has met once. They are going to meet again. It is going to be that process that, I think, will fill in the gaps that may exist. It will also ensure that communication processes are clearly identified and who’s responsible for what, so that there isn’t a misunderstanding as to who is expected to put out communication.

If I can use one example, I had an opportunity to sit down with a superintendent. We were talking about communication, and the superintendent’s comment to me was: “Minister, it’s not the what; it’s the how.” That is the feedback that I’ve heard. So I asked a couple of simple questions.

I said: “Since the deputy that currently fills that position has been in place, can you tell me that communications are better, worse or the same as they’ve always been?” That superintendent looked me in the eye and said: “They’re much better, because we have fixed calls, communication from the deputy. We’re able to ask questions. We’re able to do all of those things. So my characterization of where it is today: communication — it’s much better than it’s ever been.”

Now, that’s been a relatively short period of time, but the effort on the part of the deputy and the other staff in the ministry is to ensure that we have good and solid and ongoing communication.

V. Huntington: One final comment, then, in reply. The problem is that this act doesn’t indicate the consultat