British Columbia Hansard — Monday, April 27, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150427pm-Hansard-v24n5) (20150427pm Hansard v24n5)

20150427pm-Hansard-v24n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Monday, April 27, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Monday, April 27, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Speaker’s Statement ................................................................................................................................................................. 7659 Pierre Claude Nolin Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 7659 Statements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7659 Response to earthquake in Nepal B.

Ralston Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 7659 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 7660 Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation L. Reimer Stewart Wallis Basketball Tournament in Klemtu J. Rice Clinton Annual Ball J. Tegart Ride to Conquer Cancer S. Robinson Work of Ruth and Naomi’s Mission in Chilliwack J.

Martin Dental programs at College of New Caledonia K. Corrigan Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7662 Government action on gun violence in Delta and Surrey S. Hammell Hon. S. Anton Hon. P . Fassbender Anti-gang program funding and wait-lists M. Farnworth Hon. P . Fassbender Hon. S. Anton Ferry ridership levels and public discussion of ferry services C. Trevena Hon. T. Stone Truck permitting process and fees at Port Metro Vancouver S. Simpson Hon. T.

Stone Access to family physicians J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake Monitoring of soil dumping site in Shawnigan Lake watershed B. Routley Hon. M. Polak Water quality in Likely S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak

Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 7667 Bill 11 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. P . Fassbender R. Fleming J. Th ornthwaite G. Heyman N. Macdonald L. Krog S. Fraser D. Donaldson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7699 Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training (continued) Hon. S. Bond S. Simpson B. Ralston R. Austin

MONDAY , APRIL 27, 2015 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Speaker’s Statement PIERRE CLAUDE NOLIN Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it is with great sad- ness that I advise the House of the passing of the Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker of the Senate, last Th ursday evening, at the age of 64. I will miss him. He had been a great mentor to me. Speaker Nolin was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney on June 18, 1993, for the sen- atorial division of De Salaberry, Quebec, and was ap- pointed Speaker of the Senate by His Excellency the Rt. Hon.

David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, on November 26, 2014. I’m certain the House would like to pass along sincere condolences to his family during this diffi cult time. Introductions by Members M. Karagianis: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce a constituent of mine, Lisa Jennings, who is a paramed- ic. She is suff ering from post-traumatic stress disorder. She is a tireless advocate on behalf of those who have this medical condition. She’s here today to observe ques- tions that’ll be asked in estimates. She is a truly brave woman and speaks out on behalf of many people across this province.

I would like this House to please give her a very sin- cere and warm welcome today. [1335] Hon. P . Fassbender: All the members of this House know that when we’re here serving the people of British Columbia, we miss some signifi cant times in all of our families. Today I’m missing my wife’s birthday, so I wish the House to join me in wishing her a very happy birth- day. V . Huntington: As many of us know, there are medical students from the Medical Students’ Society at the vari- ous universities in the province visiting with us today.

I’ d like to introduce one who is a constituent of mine and her colleagues:Madeleine de Lotbiniere-Bassett, whose mother and I served on many committees in the muni- cipality; and Alyssa Kim and Robin Whitty, who have met with me and, I’m sure, with others today. Would the House make them welcome. R. Sultan: It is appropriate, aft er the death and de- struction infl icted by the earth’s seismic instability upon Nepal last weekend, that we have in the gallery today a virtual portfolio of insurance company representatives.

The dozen representatives are: from Wawanesa Insurance, Graham Haigh; from Chubb Insurance, Anne Barnes; from Economical Insurance, Cheryl Edmunson; from Intact Insurance, Rick Howe; from RSA, Kellee Irwin, from Peace Hills general insurance, Daryl Kochan; from Northbridge, Greg Kostiw; from Travelers of Canada, Joe Licitra; from Aviva Canada, Mark Rouleau; from Gore Mutual, Ian Shaw; from BCAA, Patricia Sterling; from Desjardins General Insurance, Andrew P . Veilleux. In addition, we have from the umbrella Insurance Bureau of Canada, Bill Adams, Aaron Sutherland, Miranda Lee and Michael Lee.

Would the House please welcome these fi rst-line defenders from such disasters as we have seen in Nepal this past weekend. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have a couple of guests here today: Sydney Beatty-Mills and Anna Marie Paranyo, two young women who are at the School of Social Work at UBC and have been in my offi ce for the last few months learning about the operation of my offi ce and working with me on a project that is looking at gentrifi cation in my constituency and learning from community leaders about how we might best deal with that. I would ask the House to make Sydney and Anne very welcome. L.

Reimer: It’s my pleasure to introduce today three UBC medical students who visited with me just before lunch. Kingsley Shih is from my community of Anmore. With him is Tiffany Lam and Larilee Lo. Would the House make them very welcome. Statements RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE IN NEPAL B. Ralston: As mentioned previously, a devastating earthquake shook Nepal on Saturday and thousands lost their lives. Th e Nepalese community in Surrey has reacted quickly and is supporting the relief eff orts chan- nelled through the Canadian Red Cross, both to provide relief and to contact relatives.

Anil Pradhan, the president of the Nepali Cultural Association of British Columbia, thanks British Columbia citizens for their support and will announce several fund- raising eff orts to take place at the end of the week to fur- ther advance and support relief in Nepal. Introductions by Members L. Th roness: Experience the Fraser is a long-term in- itiative to connect the north and south of the Fraser River 7659

British Columbia Debates7660 Monday, April 27, 2015 with recreational trails, right from the Fraser Canyon to the Salish Sea. Here today to tell MLAs about this great series of projects, which are nearly half done, are four distinguished visitors: Jason Lum, who’s a councillor at the city of Chilliwack; David Urban and Alison Stewart, with the Fraser Valley Regional District; and Wendy Dadalt, with Metro Vancouver. Would the House make them welcome. J. Darcy: Others have already mentioned that we are very lucky today to have a couple dozen students from the UBC medical school who are with us here today.

I’m looking forward to meeting with them this aft ernoon. I had some conversations in the lobby with a few of them already today. [1340] Th ey are working very hard. Th ey are bursting with enthusiasm. I know they have all kinds of ideas about both their own individual career paths and also about how we can improve our public health care system here in British Columbia. I really look forward to welcoming them as well. I hope the entire House will make them feel very welcome today. K. Conroy: One of those medical students is actually from Castlegar — Naomi Macrae. She grew up there.

I saw her dad on Friday, and he said to make sure that I get a full experience of her, because he says she’s incredibly smart, principled and, hopefully, is going to move back to the Kootenays to be a doctor. G. Holman: I’m very pleased to introduce today Sgt. Andy Duke of the Central Saanich police service, which every day serves their community with distinction. Would the House please make Sergeant Duke feel very welcome today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) EAGLE RIDGE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION L.

Reimer: I rise to speak about an important organiz- ation in my community which serves to support our local hospital in providing the best quality of care to residents of Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra. Th e Tri-Cities is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the province, with many young families. As the only hospital in the Tri-Cities area, Eagle Ridge Hospital provides care for over 100,000 people each year. Th e Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation was established for the purpose of raising funds and awareness to im- prove health in our Tri-Cities communities.

Fundraising by the foundation has contributed over $21 million to the hospital over the past 21 years. It includes the Charity Golf Classic held at Swaneset, the annual Evening of Caring gala, the dine-out program and the Wheel 2 Heal bicycle ride coming up this weekend, Saturday, at the Coquitlam town centre. Th e foundation’s contributions account for over 70 per- cent of the moneys used to purchase new equipment and technology each year, ensuring that patients have access to the most up-to-date screening and diagnostic services. Th e foundation is supported by many community volunteers.

In 2013-14, 369 volunteers contributed over 37 hours of service in support for fundraising and hospital programs. On behalf of my constituents, I would like to thank the Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation and their volun- teers for their hard work in support of health care in our communities. STEW ART W ALLIS BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT IN KLEMTU J. Rice: Today I rise to talk about how I spent my Easter vacation. I spent my Easter in the central coast commun- ity of Klemtu to attend the seventh annual Stewart Wallis basketball tournament.

As many members in this House know, basketball is bigger than religion on the central and north coast, where I live, so I was very happy that I could participate in this tournament. It brought players from Bella Bella this year. Usually, it would have a wider audience of First Nations members from around the coast, but due to some deaths in families, that wasn’t able to occur. Nonetheless, I watched some fi erce basketball. We had Willy from Williams Lake, who was a former Globetrotter, come up and play, as well as Terrance Richmond, who is a well-known NCAA former basketball player, a pastor and a rapper.

I had to take the ferry on Sunday, so I missed the fi nal game where Bella Bella eked out the winning game, with eight seconds left , and won by two points. I wanted to just talk about what the tournament was all about and why it started. It started in memory of a loved community member, Stewart Edward Wallis. He died at 19 in a tragic scuba diving accident in Klemtu. Stewie was the youngest of six children born to Merle Neasloss and David Wallis. He was born in 1988. At fi ve years old, he moved from Port Alberni to Klemtu, which is home to the Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation.

He spent his early childhood fi shing and playing with his fi ve siblings and many cousins. He was a shy boy, but his sense of hu- mour won him many friends, as well as the adoration of the community. [1345] CLINTON ANNUAL BALL J. Tegart: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to pull out your fi nest attire for the longest-running event of its kind in Canada, the 148th Clinton Annual Ball, coming up on May 16.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7661 Th is wonderful tradition began on New Y ear’s Day in 1868, when the fi rst ball was held in the Clinton Hotel lobby to cheer up residents during a long and cold win- ter. It was so much fun they decided to make it an annual event. Before the arrival of the Pacifi c Great Eastern rail- road in 1914, people would take the arduous multi-day journey to Clinton every year to attend. For many it was the social event of the year, for which they would start planning months in advance.

In the 1920s volunteers from Clinton built the Memorial Hall to honour friends and family who did not return from the Great War. Th e maple hardwood fl oor is one of the fi rst in Canada, and it was said that the fl oor rose to meet the happy feet of dancing couples. Every year we continue to celebrate this tradition in that very same hall. Despite changing times, that maple hardwood fl oor still rises up to meet our feet as we dance the night away. Th e Clinton ball and the Memorial Hall have survived the depression, another world war and signifi cant demo- graphic changes, but the spirit remains the same.

It is a night of music and entertainment to celebrate our herit- age. I welcome every one of you to dust off your dancing shoes and join me for the 148th Clinton Annual Ball. RIDE TO CONQUER CANCER S. Robinson: Th is summer over 2,000 cyclists will em- bark on a two-day epic ride from Vancouver to Seattle to raise money for cancer research and to test their met- tle in completing this 250 kilometre journey. Th e ride brings together cancer survivors, their families and their friends to challenge their fundraising abilities and their physical stamina.

Th e ride gives us hope and provides an opportunity for our loved ones to actually do something for survivors. Th e ride helps fi nd new treatments, new possibilities, so that lives don’t have to end prematurely. Th is year the B.C. Cancer Foundation is hosting the seventh annual Ride to Conquer Cancer the weekend of August 29. Over the past seven years, riders have raised over $59 million, funds earmarked for leading-edge can- cer research, so that when you do hear the words “you have cancer, ” it is not heard as a death sentence but as a disease to be managed and even cured.

My husband, Dan, and I did our fi rst ride in 2010 and over the years have engaged dozens of others to ride with us. Our team has raised more than $400,000 over the last six years, and we hope to continue to build our team and our contribution to cancer research. Many are daunted by the thought of riding 250 kilo- metres to Seattle. Th ese riders have ridden in blistering heat, blasting cold and pelting rain.

We have slept in tents that are caked in mud and have endured the sorest of tushies on day 2 of the ride, which makes sitting on that bicycle seat catch your breath as you settle in for the 125 kilometres on day 2. Rain, fl at tires, mud-spattered faces and arms and legs and sore tushies are nothing compared to the treatments that cancer patients endure. Being sore, wet and tired are mere inconveniences because we know that eventually we will arrive at our destination. We know that eventu- ally we will have a hot shower to warm our bones and wash the road grit off .

And on those smoking hot days, we know that a cold beer is waiting for us at the end of the ride. But those living with a cancer diagnosis, those liv- ing with cancer, have no idea what lies ahead for them. I hope my colleagues will join me, and when I put out the request for funds, you’ll support the ride. WORK OF RUTH AND NAOMI’S MISSION IN CHILLIW ACK J.

Martin: Just recently I had the opportunity to wit- ness the outstanding results of community spirit and compassion when the Rotary Club of Chilliwack-Fraser and the city of Chilliwack gathered to open new emer- gency shelter beds at Ruth and Naomi’s Mission in downtown Chilliwack. Many tears were shed as these community leaders gathered to celebrate the eff orts of the tradespeople who donated their time, the companies that donated supplies and the generosity of Chilliwack- Fraser Rotarians who funded the project.

Ruth and Naomi’s Mission does incredible work in our community, off ering hope through shelter, warm food and providing the opportunity for rehabilitation pro- grams when the guests are ready to commit. [1350] I’m so pleased that our Premier and the minister re- sponsible for housing have been so supportive of the Ruth and Naomi’s organization over the years. It is even more exciting to see the swell of support from the com- munity, including this recent investment of $73,000 from the Rotary Club of Chilliwack-Fraser, to fund the renova- tions for the 12 new emergency shelter beds.

Ruth and Naomi’s executive director, Bill Raddatz, says: “Getting them off the streets and hopefully into a re- covery program — that’s the ultimate goal. We can show them how, when they become healthier, they can also be better citizens of Chilliwack. We want them to feel like it’s home but, at the same time, challenge them. ” Working to end homelessness is something each of us strives for in our communities. Will the House please join me in congratulating the city of Chilliwack, Rotary and the impressive dedication of Chilliwack commun- ity members to help move these fi ne initiatives forward.

DENTAL PROGRAMS AT COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA K. Corrigan: It was a great deal of pleasure to recent- ly visit the University of Northern British Columbia and

British Columbia Debates7662 Monday, April 27, 2015 the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. I want to thank everyone, who were so welcoming. CNC’s dental assisting and dental hygiene programs have served the community for 46 years, in the case of the dental assisting program, and 28 years for the dental hygiene program. Th e programs off er education, employ- ment and health promotion. In addition, they provide important public access to low-cost dental care through their very busy clinics. Th ere are many people who are receiving dental care that likely would not get that care but for these programs.

Two particular benefi ts of the program are, fi rst, that they provide training in the north so that many students don’t have to go away from home, or at least not as far. Secondly, it also brings students to the north, students who oft en stay and make their lives in Prince George or other northern communities. Th ese dental programs have been an investment into sustainability and growth in the north. It’s also important that the jobs of both the instructors and the graduated students are, largely, jobs for women.

Graduates of these fully subscribed programs are em- ployed at a rate of 97 percent for dental hygiene and 94 percent for dental assisting. Th ese are very high quality programs with, I am told, 100 percent pass rates on the national board exams. Recently these highly respected and long-standing programs have been on the chopping block, as the College of New Caledonia struggles with a $2.8 million funding shortfall.

Th ere has been a partial reprieve this last week, so we’ll wait to see the fi nal outcome for these outstanding programs that for many years have provid- ed opportunities, good jobs and developed professional members of dental care teams that serve Prince George and other northern communities. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE IN DELTA AND SURREY S. Hammell: As every member of this House knows, a young man was shot and killed on the streets of Surrey earlier this month. His death followed 22 other incidents of gunfi re in Surrey and Delta over the previous six weeks.

Th e community is calling out for help, for more resour- ces devoted to supporting families in early intervention before these young people are lured into a gang lifestyle. Can the Minister of Justice tell the people of Surrey what support she is prepared to add to schools to make sure that kids are supported before it’s too late? Hon. S. Anton: Th e events in Surrey are terrible for the Surrey community and dreadful for the family of the young man and for his friends. He was surrounded by a loving family, as are all these young men involved in these shootings.

As the police, as the mayor, as we have said in govern- ment, there are a lot of resources being put into this. But I just would like to reiterate the message that has been given out constantly. It is up to family and friends to come forward and help out the police. I’m going to reiterate “friends” here. Sometimes fam- ilies don’t even know, but their friends know.

And if their friends come forward and help the police, that helps everyone, because nobody wants to see the bad end that can come to young men, in particular — young women, sometimes — who are involved in these incidents. [1355] Th ere are very signifi cant resources through police, through the eff orts of the city, but then there have also been signifi cant government resources. In the last four years we have provided $775,000 in civil forfeiture pro- ceeds to local organizations’ anti-violence and crime pre- vention programs, including almost $300,000 this year alone, recently announced.

We recently gave $20,000 in support of the Surrey Wrap program, one of Canada’s leading youth gang intervention programs. Th ere are school liaison offi cers. Th ere are a number of programs in Surrey, because everybody in Surrey de- serves to feel safe, and people in Surrey want this crime wave, this shooting wave, to end. Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a sup- plemental. S. Hammell: In Surrey there are only ten RCMP school liaison offi cers. Th ere are 120 schools. Th ere are 70,000 students in those schools, and that student num- ber continues to grow.

By comparison, in Vancouver there are fewer students, fewer schools and 16 police li- aison offi cers — not ten but 16. Clearly, young people in Surrey receive less attention and some no attention at all. Can the Minister of Justice tell this House what she is prepared to add to the schools in Surrey to prevent a young person from turning to gangs and picking up a weapon? Hon. P . Fassbender: To echo what the Minister of Justice has said and the Premier has said and the mayor of Surrey has said, we clearly want the people of Surrey and other communities to know that they’re not alone.

How we deal with the very complex issue of gangs is not something that there are simplistic answers for. But I will say this. Th e Premier will be meeting with the mayor and with other offi cials in Surrey tomorrow to talk about how we can all work together. Th is is not an issue that is isolated to the schools or to other parts of the community. Th is touches every part of the community. Th is government is committing to work- ing with those agencies to make sure we provide the best support that we possibly can.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7663 ANTI-GANG PROGRAM FUNDING AND W AIT-LISTS M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Justice, whose ministry is responsible for anti-gang pro- grams. She talked about what the government is doing in terms of anti-gang and anti-violence programs in Surrey as they relate to young people. But Minister, you have a wait-list…. Madame Speaker: Th rough the Chair. M. Farnworth: Th ank you, hon. Speaker. The minister has a wait-list of over 40 students in Surrey alone who want to get into an anti-gang program, and they don’t have the funds to accommodate them.

My question to the Attorney General is this. If she’s so big on the programs that she’s doing, will she at least en- sure they’re funded so that we don’t have wait-lists, so that kids can get into those gang programs and so that parents know that there are some resources that they can turn to, to ensure their young people don’t get into a gang lifestyle? Hon. P . Fassbender: To the member opposite and the question about the Wrap program, we are very aware of the wait-list that has been talked about.

I mentioned, and I will reiterate that the Premier is meeting tomorrow with the mayor, with the RCMP , with the school district. We will fi nd a solution to ensure that we do everything pos- sible to get those 40 that are on the wait-list into a pro- gram that will prevent them…. More importantly, the message that we need to con- tinue to send — the Premier has said this; the Minister of Justice has said it; the mayor, the RCMP offi cer in charge of the Surrey detachment have said this — is that this is an entire-community problem.

We need to work together to fi nd solutions that are both sustainable and long-lasting. [1400] Th e Wrap program was initially funded by the federal government. Th at funding has come to an end, but we know that this is one of the most successful programs in the country. We are committed to fi nding a path, work- ing with all of those partners, including the federal gov- ernment, on solutions that will be long-lasting. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer from the Minister of Education, but he’s not the Minister of Justice.

Th e Attorney General is supposed to be the Minister of Justice for this province. Th e Ministry of Justice is where people in this province expect to turn to see that pro- grams are in place that can help communities, and we’re not hearing that from the Minister of Justice today. My question is again to the Minister of Justice. She stood up in the House and said there are programs in place to help families deal with gang violence. Y et the re- cord of this ministry has been one of cuts to the RCMP on their gang-fi ghting task force — $4.2 million. Th e Attorney General knows that.

Th e Wrap program is a popular program that’s proven to be successful. Again, the minister talked about funding going to that, yet there’s a wait-list of 40 people. We hear again that the Premier is going out to Surrey, which we hope is more than just a photo op. What we really want to see is a commitment to public safety in Surrey and communities around British Columbia. What we want to see is a commitment to resources that families can access so kids don’t go into a gang lifestyle. Will the Minister of Justice commit that funding will be in place to eliminate the wait-list for the Wrap pro- gram in Surrey? Hon.

S. Anton: As the Minister of Education has said, there will be a meeting tomorrow between the Premier and the mayor of Surrey, and they will be addressing the Wrap program. In terms of the resources for policing and anti-crime in Surrey, let me talk about the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit — CFSEU, the anti-gang unit. We spend $60 million a year with the RCMP on that unit. It has a very strong anti-gang focus, including the End Gang Life campaign. Anyone who is involved in a gang, who has a family member or a friend involved in a gang, can go to that website, and they can fi nd help.

People around gang members oft en know that they are involved in gangs, but they need a place to go for help. Th at’s one of the things that CFSEU does. CFSEU is the largest integrated joint forces police unit in Canada. We are fortunate in B.C. to have this unit. It develops highly specialized offi cers from federal, provin- cial and municipal agencies around the province. It has a focus on anti-gang activity.

It has stepped up to the plate completely in Surrey and is working very closely with Surrey police, Delta police, mayor of Surrey and Surrey council because they want, like all of us want, Surrey to be safe. FERRY RIDERSHIP LEVELS AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF FERRY SERVICES C. Trevena: Last week the CEO of B.C. Ferries fl oat- ed a novel explanation for the ridership problems at B.C. Ferries. It’s not because fares have risen more than 100 percent. It’s not because service has been cut on many routes. It’s not because seniors discounts have been dis- continued.

No, it’s because the opposition and the media talk about it. Apparently, there are untold thousands of people in the Interior or on the Mainland travelling around the prov-

British Columbia Debates7664 Monday, April 27, 2015 ince who aren’t using B.C. Ferries because, despite B.C. Ferries’ extensive advertising, people don’t know how much riding the ferry actually costs. To the Minister of Transportation, does he believe that the ridership problems at B.C. Ferries are because people talk about how much it costs? Hon. T. Stone: I have said very clearly in this House and outside the House that we acknowledge that there is a correlation between rising fares and volumes of pas- sengers across the B.C.

Ferries system. [1405] Th at is exactly why we are doing everything that we pos- sibly can, working with the coastal communities and the Ferry Commissioner and the ferry corporation, to apply as much downward pressure on fares as fast as possible. Progress is being made. Th e Ferry Commissioner, who is independent, as the member well knows, only weeks ago pointed out, in terms of the price caps for PT4, that the price caps will be at 1.9 percent, which is roughly in line with infl ation. Th at was our goal, and arguably, we are four years ahead of accomplishing our goal of aff ord- ability of fares at B.C.

Ferries. Madame Speaker: Th e member for North Island on a supplemental. C. Trevena: Th ere’s something of a fairy tale–like qual- ity about this four years ahead on a plan. I have to say, if nothing else, Mr. Corrigan’s solution for B.C. Ferries is simple. It’s like close my eyes and you won’t see me. If we don’t talk about the high cost of fares, there won’t really be a high cost of fares. Th e only problem with his strategy and the minister’s strategy is that fares are high. Th e Minister of Transportation is going to follow Mr. Corrigan’s route of pretending that the fares aren’t real- ly high?

Or is he going to do something to make using B.C. Ferries more aff ordable for B.C. families and bring down the fares? Hon. T. Stone: Th e most novel suggestion that we have heard from the member opposite as a solution to driv- ing down the cost of B.C. Ferries was that all passengers should ride around on Soviet-era ships with bench seats and cold coff ee. We are working very hard with the Ferry Commissioner and with B.C. Ferries to get ferries to a place of long-term sustainability and aff ordability. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Please continue. Hon. T.

Stone: Y es, that has included some tough de- cisions that we have had to make as government. But it has also included a record-level $180 million of fund- ing which we have provided on an annual basis to B.C. Ferries, which is in stark contrast to the $5 million in an- nual funding that the NDP government provided in the 1990s. All that folks in coastal communities got through the 1990s was a bunch of fast ferries that didn’t work and were sold for a fraction of what they were origin- ally built for. TRUCK PERMITTING PROCESS AND FEES AT PORT METRO V ANCOUVER S.

Simpson: Last week the federal court threw out the permitting structure for trucks in the port of Vancouver. Th e judge called the plan fundamentally fl awed and un- fair. We learned from the court proceedings that the prov- ince, which has some primary responsibility for truck- ing in the port now, including appointing the trucking commissioner, was consulted on this permitting process prior to it being adopted by the port. However, the re- sult of this court decision is more uncertainty — again, in regards to trucking in the port — because of shoddy work by the port, apparently condoned by the province.

My question to the minister is, did the province raise concerns about the fairness of the permitting process at the time they were consulted, and if not, why not? Hon. T. Stone: As the member across the way knows well, this is a complex fi le — what had been competing jurisdictional overlap at the port, non-union and union truckers and so forth.

We worked very, very hard as one of the parties at bringing some long-term certainty to the port, and we’ve been focussed exclusively on ensur- ing that the provincial aspects of the 14-point joint action plan have all been delivered on. [1410] I’m very proud of the fact that this government has stood up for truckers. We have stood up for truckers to ensure that they’re paid what they rightfully have earned. I’ll tell you, hon.

Speaker, that the independent truck- ing commissioner, who is in place, is working very, very hard on audits and complaints that are brought forward, to ensure that truckers receive the compensation which they have worked so hard to receive. Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Hastings on a supplemental. S. Simpson: Part of the eff ort, the work that the min- ister and the levels of government were supposed to be doing was to reduce some of that complexity, and that in- cluded the province taking a larger role.

Th e larger role means oversight, and apparently there wasn’t any when it came to the permitting process. But that’s not the only problem here.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7665 We know that in January the province announced a fee structure for truckers in the port. Th is was a diffi cult situation, as the fi rst draft of that structure did not refl ect the Vince Ready report and almost led to strike action before the plan was amended. Here we are three months later, and the fee structure has yet to be adopted by regulation. We’re told that that may occur next month, in May. However, there are con- cerns that what is adopted may not refl ect the agreement as it was originally planned.

We know there are questions about aspects of the fees to ensure that they’re fair for drivers and owner-operators. Will the minister, fi rst, tell us: why has it taken over three months to get the regulation in place on the fees? And in an eff ort to get this right, unlike what’s happened with the permitting, will he commit to consulting with the union and with the independent drivers on all the de- tails of the fee structure before he fi nalizes it? Hon. T.

Stone: First, with respect to the issue of the li- cence reform, we did off er a perspective to the port and the federal government on this particular matter. We made it very clear in our discussions with the port that we expected them to address the licensing rationaliza- tion from a position of fairness and equity for the truck- ers fi rst and foremost. Th e port, which is responsible for the rationalization of licences, undertook the program that they did, and the court has rendered its decision based on the case that was brought forward.

We await the port’s decision on whether or not the port will appeal that decision. But I can tell you this much. Th e independent contain- er trucking commissioner, Andy Smith, who has been in place for a number of months now, is working extremely hard to ensure that truckers are treated fairly and, most importantly, to ensure that they receive the compensa- tion which they have rightfully earned. We’re going to continue to do what we need to, to sup- port the eff orts of the independent container trucking commissioner as he presses forward to ensure that truck- ers receive their fair compensation.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS J. Darcy: Th ere has been a litany of broken promises from this Liberal government on health care. Perhaps the most deplorable of them is the fi ve-year-old promise that every British Columbian would have a family doc- tor by 2015. We’re now one-third of the way through 2015, and there are still hundreds of thousands of British Columbians without a family doctor.

Th at’s putting some British Columbians at risk, because without access to a family doctor, without access to basic primary care, many British Columbians can’t access basic diagnostic proced- ures, like mammograms, that are critical to their health. Will the Health Minister explain why this govern- ment has failed to keep its promise that every British Columbian would have A GP for Me by 2015? Hon. T. Lake: Th e member, I think rightly, points to a challenge for health care in Canada — and around North America, quite frankly. In the province of Alberta 20 per- cent of Albertans do not have a family physician.

In the province of Quebec it’s 25 percent. [1415] In the province of British Columbia it’s 16 percent, and we recognize that this is a challenge. I know that all mem- bers, in their constituency offi ces, face this challenge. I do in my constituency offi ce as well. We are working extremely hard creating divisions of family practice that work hard with family physicians to increase their capacity to attach patients to family prac- tice. I can tell you this. It was that government in the 1990s that failed to add one seat to medical education in this province.

We have more than doubled the number of family practitioners coming out here in British Columbia. We’ll continue to work hard to make sure that British Columbians get the primary care they deserve. Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J. Darcy: Th is government made that promise fi rst in the year 2010. It was then repeated on the campaign trail by the Premier and many members opposite right across this province in 2013.

Th e fact of the matter is this gov- ernment broke that promise, and they should admit that to the people of British Columbia, because it has a real impact on real people. Th e Ministry of Health encourages women over the age of 40 to have mammograms every two years, but because of her family history with breast cancer, Lisa Winbourne of Victoria qualifies for an annual mam- mogram. When Lisa tried to book one recently, she was “shocked and appalled” to fi nd out that she could only book an appointment if she did it through her family doctor. Well, Lisa has been trying to get a family doctor for over two years.

She lives in Victoria. She’s been trying as far as Duncan to get a family doctor. Lisa is one more person who has been failed by this government’s broken promise about GP for Me by 2015. Will the minister explain to Lisa why he has failed to live up to his promise to her and thousands of other people like her that she would have a family doctor by 2015? Hon. T. Lake: We have been in contact with the B.C. Cancer Agency mammography screening program. We’ve made it very clear that there will be a pool of phys- icians that are available if someone does not have a family

British Columbia Debates7666 Monday, April 27, 2015 physician. No one should be denied access to a mammo- gram, and we will ensure that’s the case. Th e divisions of family practice and the GP for Me program have made great strides. Over 54,600 vulner- able patients are now matched with family physicians than before this program started. We are using nurse practitioners more and more in the province of British Columbia. We are using integrated care in terms of hav- ing integrated health care centres where people don’t al- ways have to see a physician; they can see another health care professional.

We’re working with pharmacists. We’re working with all spheres of the health care profession to make sure that people get the primary health care they deserve. MONITORING OF SOIL DUMPING SITE IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE W ATERSHED B. Routley: When the Minister of Environment met with concerned residents and the CVRD area director of Shawnigan Lake regarding the contaminated soil dump site, the minister committed to pursue environmental monitoring in response to local residents’ concerns that there is already contaminated leaching at the site into Shawnigan Creek.

Th e minister promised that not only would her offi cials do soil and water testing at the site but that the CVRD staff would be allowed to accompany and do their own testing. Th ese commitments are much appreciated by the community. Can the minister tell us on what day the soil and water monitoring the minister promised will be conducted? Hon. M.

Polak: Y es, we did indeed have a very pro- ductive meeting with representatives from the CVRD, and my staff committed to ensure that they do have the opportunity to attend, be present and be part of the on- going monitoring that will be needed and also to be able to take a look at and have explained to them what results are uncovered from the additional testing that they’ve agreed to. [1420] I don’t have a fi rm date. I was updated by staff that they are putting together the appropriate plan for what areas they need to test, what type of testing they need to con- duct.

Th at should not take very long, probably a matter of days, and then they will be in contact with CVRD rep- resentatives to ensure that all that can take place. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental. B. Routley: I’m concerned that no date has been set. When it comes to a town like Jumbo, with zero residents, the minister will bend over backwards to help out and even let the community bend the rules. When it comes to Shawnigan, a real community with real people with families, the ministry doesn’t have a date yet.

Given that local residents are saying leaching has al- ready occurred at the site, can the minister give us an ex- planation for the delay? Will she ensure that monitoring will be done very soon and that the CVRD will be noti- fi ed and allowed to attend and do their own monitoring? Hon. M. Polak: Th ere is no delay. Th e staff immedi- ately set about to assess what types of concerns there were specifi cally. Th ose at the meeting had outlined some additional testing that they wished to see conducted.

Th at takes some planning with respect to the appropriate staff , to ensure that they’re on hand, that they have the appro- priate equipment and that they can plan this for a time when all can attend. It may be, in fact, that staff have al- ready organized a date with CVRD. It should be a matter of days before they have lined up what their schedules will look like. But there’s no delay at all. Staff have been working on this since the meeting that we had. W ATER QUALITY IN LIKELY S.

Chandra Herbert: Water test results near Likely, B.C., continue to show incredibly high levels of metal contamination, so high that they break safe drinking water guidelines. In January aluminum levels were near- ly 15 times higher than the recommended limit, iron six times higher and manganese twice as high. My question is to the Environment Minister. The Premier came to Likely, said the water was fi ne. Th ese test results show a completely diff erent picture. What does she have to say to the residents of Likely, who don’t feel safe drinking their drinking water? Hon. M.

Polak: Although the questions around Mount Polley don’t tend to get as much profi le right now as they have in the past, nevertheless, that certainly remains a concern for the residents in and around the town of Likely and for those who are impacted by the water. Th ere are a number of levels that come into play here with respect to metals. Th ere are issues of total for met- als versus dissolved metals. I will not attempt to take the House through that scientifi c display here. What I will say is this. We continue the ongoing mon- itoring of the water in the area.

Th ose results continue to be posted on line for the public to see. I would be more than happy to sit down with the member or any other members opposite who would be interested in a more detailed briefi ng as to how the monitoring is continuing and what information we understand currently about that water situation. No question. Th is will be a situation of monitoring and testing — not for months but probably for years to come. [End of question period.]

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7667 Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training — and in this chamber, second reading on Bill 11. [1425] Second Reading of Bills BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon. P . Fassbender: I move that the bill now be read a second time. Th is legislation amends the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teachers Act, to focus on four main objectives.

Before I get into the discussion on those ob- jectives, I wanted to say that whenever a bill is introduced in this House, it is done with the clear recognition of the responsibility that we have to the taxpayers of the prov- ince, to the citizens of this province and, in this particu- lar case, to the teaching profession, the school trustees. [D. Horne in the chair.] When I was in Banff recently, at an international sym- posium on the teaching profession, I had the opportun- ity to speak to many other Ministers of Education from jurisdictions around the world. Th ere were two things that became very clear to me.

One, British Columbia is seen as a leader in the world when it comes to educa- tional outcomes. Th at is not by accident. Th at is by the hard work and the diligence of the teachers of this prov- ince, of the school districts and, indeed, of the province of British Columbia. What was also obvious, as the second thing, is that the world of education has changed already, continues to change and needs to be ready to meet those learning outcomes for students so that we can ensure that they are successful in their chosen careers.

Th at is, again, an awesome responsibility that requires our vigilance on what changes need to be made, how quickly those need to be made and how we do that in concert with all of the stakeholders involved in the future of education in this province. Within the education system there are many stake- holders that are directly involved that we are well aware of.

But we’ve also seen the need to further broaden the net of involvement in education in the future by partnering with the business and industry sector, trade unions and other people who can provide the kind of support to a system that needs to be fl exible and nimble. Getting to the four major objectives and facilitating a change in education that is necessary at this time, I would like to talk about what those four pillars are in this legis- lation. It does amend the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teachers Act, to focus on those four objectives.

Th e fi rst is to build a framework for continu- ing professional development for all certifi ed teachers in the province. As we have done a review of other professions not only in this province but in other jurisdictions and, indeed, around the world, we clearly recognize — I heard it in Banff as well — that it is the quality of the teachers in the classroom that is one of the most fundamental aspects of the success of students.

In recognizing that, looking for professional development and broadening professional development outcomes for teachers is at the heart of this particular legislation. [1430] Th e second pillar is facilitating the delivery of shared services amongst school districts.

Ever since I had the honour to serve as the Minister of Education, in every public speech that I have made, both to the School Trustees Association, to other groups, industry groups and so on, I have said that we need to fi nd every way that is practical and achievable to fi nd savings that can be in- vested in the quality of the programs in the classrooms.

Th e third one is to ensure that we have a more fl exible accountability framework within the K-to-12 system that ensures that we have the fl exibility to meet the needs as they’re identifi ed and as research and other practices around the world indicate to us. Th e fi nal one is aligning the provisions on the use of student data with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Currently, the Teachers Act is silent with respect to continuing professional development, better known as CPD.

Th e proposed amendments will set a general framework for CPD in order to continue to enhance the reputation of the teaching profession, which is well re- spected, again, around the world, and support teachers. Th e key word there is “support” teachers in developing and maintaining the knowledge and the skills necessary to support the transformation of B.C. ’s education system. Th e proposed amendments will defi ne CPD broadly, as I’ve said.

And it’ll include participating or presenting a course or program, mentoring or other initiatives re- lated to the training and qualifi cations of the teaching certifi cate holders. I have had many discussions with the executive of the BCTF since I have been appointed as minister and have said — and they have also agreed — that the quality of teachers in the classroom, as I said earlier, is one of the key criteria for student success.

Inherent in that, then, is a clear recognition by all of us of professional develop- ment, ensuring that we set the minimum number of CPD hours for teachers to complete each year, approve the broad subject areas for CPD and provide exemptions for certain types of teaching certifi cate holders. We recognize that that is an important element, and we

British Columbia Debates7668 Monday, April 27, 2015 are committed, through this legislation and regulations that may fl ow out of it, to collaborating with the BCTF on the development of that framework and ensuring that it meets, fi rst and foremost, the needs of the teachers and the support that can be provided. We spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on professional development year aft er year, and we have to ensure that that is applied in the way that has the most benefi t for teachers and, ultimately, the students in their classrooms.

Th rough this legislation, the director of cer- tifi cation at the teacher regulation branch will be author- ized to approve specifi c CPD courses or other activities that are jointly developed between the ministry, the BCTF and teachers, and will also allow for exemptions to individual certifi cate holders and establish a process for verifying CPD compliance. Th e word “compliance” is not being used in a nega- tive way. It is simply saying that if we establish standards, then the expectation on the part of all of us should be that those standards are being met and that there is a process in place to ensure that.

Teachers will still be able to customize CPD to meet their individual training and development needs. We clearly know that diff erent teachers are at diff erent places in their careers, so that ability to individualize it is inher- ent in where we are going to move in the future. I will say very clearly that the ministry is committed. I’ve communicated that to the BCTF and to the BCSTA — that we will work with the key education partners to develop specifi cs.

It will include post-secondary institu- tions, which are responsible for training new teachers and training them in terms of what they can expect when they go out and are certifi ed to teach in schools through- out the province. Th e intent of the legislation is that we would not be bringing it into force in terms of regulation until such time that we have completed that work. [1435] With respect to shared services, the School Act clearly gives boards the authority, currently, to enter into agree- ments to purchase or provide certain services.

Th e pro- posed legislation will amend the School Act to clarify that a board’s ability to enter into agreements is not restrict- ed to agreements that relate solely to the operation of schools in the district but to the district generally. Again, I have said consistently to the BCSTA and trustees that we will work with them in identifying that. I want to correct what I think is a misconception: that there has been no discussion or consultation on that direction up to this point.

Th ere have been extensive discussions at every level — within the ministry, within the administration of school districts and, indeed, in the times that I’ve been before the trustees of this province. Th is is a goal that we are going to meet on behalf of the taxpayers — and the accountability we all share in how the dollars that are invested in education are spent. Th e proposed legislation will amend the School Act, yes, to enable the minister to require boards to use desig- nated service providers for specifi c services, where it makes sense.

Th at will be bathed in a very clear and ar- ticulated business case as to why that is being expected and what the outcomes and the benefi ts will be. Th e legislation will allow the minister to designate ser- vice providers for some or all boards. Th is will provide the necessary fl exibility to set provincewide as well as local shared-services requirements. Th at discussion has been ongoing and will continue until we move forward on any of those initiatives — again, based on a solid busi- ness case and in the best interests of the districts, the tax- payers and the system as a whole.

Th e next one is to enable the establishment of a new accountability framework. Th e current School Act provi- sions require boards, on an annual basis, to submit num- erous plans and reports. Some of those plans and reports, we’ve clearly heard from school districts — we have been listening — are not seen to be eff ective by the people who have to submit them. Th e district literacy plans will all be removed, with pro- visions regarding the appointment of superintendents of achievement and establishment of school planning coun- cils.

What we have clearly been told is that they have not been operating eff ectively, that we need to change that process. By changing the act, we’re providing, again, the fl exibility and the ability to be nimble when changes are identifi ed and agreed to so that we can move forward. Th e current provisions regarding the appointment of special advisers and the issuance of administrative dir- ectives to boards of education will be broadened. Th ey are signifi cant in the current act.

Th ey will be broadened, providing the fl exibility to implement new requirements for increasing and improving student achievement, be- ginning in the 2015 and ’16 school year. I’ve clearly heard, as every member of this House and the public has, that we need to continue to improve those outcomes. We cannot stand on our laurels. We need to fi nd new and creative and innovative ways to do that. I heard that again when I listened to the other experts and other ministers from jurisdictions around the world. Everyone is moving to that paradigm. It is not one that is done lightly.

We know the responsibility we have for student outcomes and achievements, and we’re going to be focused on that. Th e new policy requirements are being constructed — I think it’s important for me to say it very clearly — collaboratively with the B.C. school trustees, with their administrative staff , with their teachers in their districts. We are going to work with them. We are also going to en- gage in a more proactive way with parents around this province and other people who have a vested interest in the success of students for their futures. [1440] Finally, the last item is with respect to personal educa-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7669 tion numbers. Th is legislation will align the School Act with the more current provisions — and the safeguards, I might add — found in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Th is will allow the ministry to make better use of student data to improve the K-to-12 system while protecting personal privacy, consistent with the standards across British Columbia in the public sec- tor, including health and other social services.

I know clearly that education is one of the key founda- tions of the future of this province, of this country and, indeed, of the world. We live in a global economy. We live in a world where education borders are not narrow; they are wide. British Columbia is a leader. We’re rated No. 3 over- all in the world. Against Japan and Finland, which are very oft en touted, we are No. 3 — not Canada but British Columbia. We’re there for a good reason. It’s because we’ve worked hard. We’ve developed a strong and ro- bust system. We need to be fl exible. We need to be creative.

We need to be engaging with other sectors of society to ensure that we have a system that continues to lead and that we have an education system that meets the need of every single student — no matter who they are, where they come from, their backgrounds — whether they have unique needs or whether they are coming from other countries and English is a second language. We are committed to making sure that B.C. ’s education system stays in the fore- front and is seen as a leader, as it is today. R. Fleming: I can’t say I’m pleased to take my place this aft ernoon in this debate. I feel obligated to do so.

Th e opposition and my colleagues will make known the concerns they have about Bill 11 from the perspective of constituents that they represent, elected offi cials who share their constituents in the areas that they represent. I’ve got to tell you that here, at second reading on Bill 11, you could not fi nd a better symbol of how completely out of touch with the priorities of parents and kids and the education system Bill 11 is, to the things that they want to see debated about driving improvements in pub- lic education.

I began my day this morning like a lot of parents, hun- dreds of thousands of parents in British Columbia, at my kids’ schools. I can tell you that nobody on the school ground this morning — parents, grandparents, teachers, special education assistants, nobody — was talking about the ridiculous introduction, the rationale for Bill 11 that has been off ered by the minister and this government. Now, there was a lot of discussion about the PAC fundraiser coming up, to make sure that we have tech- nology. We’ve got hardware that’s six years old in our school.

Th ere was a lot of discussion about how in British Columbia special needs learners can actually have a graduation rate 30 percent lower than the regular gradua- tion rate. Th ere’s concern amongst parents, amongst non- aboriginals and aboriginals alike, about opportunities for young First Nations learners in our school. Th ere’s a yearning to drive better results from our school. Most of the discussion, though, is about how this Premier, in particular, seems to have an endless, un- boundless agenda against public education in British Columbia, and they wonder why.

Th is bill shouldn’t even be before the House today. I will try to make that clear this aft ernoon — why that is not just my opinion. It’s not just the opinion of the of- fi cial opposition. It’s the opinion of every single major stakeholder group in the public education system in the province of British Columbia. [1445] At this stage of debate on Bill 11, having had no con- sultation beforehand from this government when the bill was dropped in….

I don’t think a 15-minute phone call to the leader of 40,000 professional teachers in British Columbia 15 minutes in advance of tabling this legisla- tion counts as consultation. I’m sorry. It does not. I don’t think some vagaries about an accountability framework months ago, completely disconnected from legislation that gives the minister centralized powers that we’ve never seen before in British Columbia, counts as consultation with elected school boards in every region and corner of this province. It’s a failure, and that’s why this legislation shouldn’t be before the House today.

It’s fundamentally illegitimate. It’s illegitimate. It lacks any input from those who are our partners in delivering public education on a daily basis on the ground in the school system. Interjection. R. Fleming: Th e minister is saying it’s not true. Well, I would ask the minister to do this. He should have done it before he made his introductory remarks, but it’s never too late. We’re at second reading.

I would ask him to just take a little bit of time — I know listening to other points of view isn’t his strong point — to read the reviews of all of the stakeholders, elected offi cials and others, all of the key partners in “collaboration” — the word he likes to use and abuse. Th e reviews are in about Bill 11, and every major or- ganization in British Columbia is calling upon this gov- ernment, this minister, who never asked them their opinion in the fi rst place, to withdraw this illegitimate bill at this stage. Th at’s what they’re asking for.

Now, I know he had a very busy schedule, and he couldn’t attend the recent B.C. School Trustees Association annual general meeting. Too bad. But there was a resolution, if he hasn’t caught up to this yet, passed by that organization. Th is is hardly an organization that waves placards and banners, if I can put it that way. Th e B.C. School Trustees Association, having had no advance benefi t of the contents of this legislation, had its

British Columbia Debates7670 Monday, April 27, 2015 fi rst opportunity to gather in Vancouver last week to look at the bill, to talk to their administrators, to talk to each other and fi gure out what the implications of Bill 11 are for them. Th ey looked at that bill, and they concluded — as I’ve concluded and others who’ve looked at this legis- lation — that Bill 11 is wrong. It goes too far, it goes too fast, and it should be withdrawn. Th at was the resolution that was passed by the B.C. School Trustees Association. It’s unbelievable, really, that Bill 11 is before the House at this time.

Th is government forgets what it says from one month to the next. It honestly does. Sometimes it’s even shorter — maybe a day, if you’re lucky. But I dis- tinctly remember the Premier saying…. Aft er the longest, most disastrous school disruption endured by 550,000 kids, their parents, families and com- munities across British Columbia, she fi nally got it aft er it was all over, aft er their lives had been turned upside down. She said: “Y ou know what? I think in the school system right now” — her words — “it’s time to heal. ” Th at was October. It’s now April. Apparently, the heal- ing is over.

It’s now time to get back to that well-worn pattern that we’ve endured over a decade, particular- ly when she was the Minister of Education, and as the Premier, where she takes a particular delight in poking those involved in public education in the eye over and over and over again for the sake of confrontation. Th at’s what Bill 11 represents. It’s the latest

chapter of over a decade of this. Th is bill, as I’ve said and as others have said, goes too far. Th e incursion that it would allow the Minister of Education to make into the daily administration of our school system is such that it would allow him unlimited power to second-guess, overrule and even dismiss our elected school board offi cials. [1450] Now, he’ll say: “Oh, but the School Act allows some of that already. ” Y es, it does.

Th e School Act is very specif- ic and has been for decades that elected school boards have a fi duciary responsibility to balance their budgets — which is an incredibly tough job, especially in these past few years. But it’s a fi duciary responsibility that school boards year aft er year live up to, based on tough budget- making at the local level. It’s based on consultation with all their schools and with school leaders in their districts. It’s based on some painful decisions, some compromises that have to be made.

It’s becoming more and more diffi cult, as we know from debating the budget here in this chamber, with this government implementing and forcing through another $55 million cut on school boards when they said that they wouldn’t. But it’s a responsibility that school boards have fulfi lled. Government, on very, very rare occasions when boards have not lived up to their fi duciary responsibilities in the School Act, has taken the highly unusual step of placing those boards under trusteeship, under administration. Y ou can probably count the number of times on one hand. It should be rare — it is rare — in B.C.

Th e balance of power, the co-governance between the Ministry of Education and locally elected school boards, is such that each partner fulfi ls their responsibilities. Th is bill upsets that balance, which has been understood between those two major partners for decades in our province. Th is bill is now going beyond the exceptional, rarely used procedural motion of putting a board under trusteeship in the event that they fail their fi duciary duty. It’s changing all that. Th e minister now has the power to say: “It’s not enough that you balance your budget.

Y ou must balance your budget in the way that I say you have to balance it. ” Th at’s the diff erence now, and that’s a signifi cant escalation of the minister’s powers. It changes in the amendments here too. It becomes a less accountable, arbitrary power that he will have. He doesn’t even have to go through Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council to make that decision. He doesn’t have to con- sult his colleagues in the executive branch. We don’t have the benefi t, for example, of maybe the Justice Minister saying: “Y ou know what?

Th at’s not a good idea for the schools I represent in my constituency. ” It actually circumvents having any cabinet debate. Checks and balances and checks and balances removed by this minister in this bill before the House. Th at’s why Bill 11 needs to be defeated. It goes too far on another matter that’s contained in the bill. It goes too far in the scope that government gives it- self to solely determine, to control through the ministry, teacher professional development in this province. Now, there is an exciting conversation to be had in B.C.

Th ere is a dynamic program to work through with teachers and school districts and faculties of education, quite frankly, to drive better results in British Columbia by looking at teacher professional development. Th at’s something that’s going to take time. Th at’s something that has to be a strategy of the government. Th ere has to be a plan to do that. Th at’s an opportunity that should be seized. Th is is a legislative fi at that gives the minister complete control over what professional development could or may not look like, going forward.

We shouldn’t make laws like that in British Columbia or any other jurisdiction. Blank cheque legislation is dangerous. How many examples do we need of that in history? Th at’s what this is. Professional development will be his purview, not even the people who do the teaching. He says: “Oh well, we’ll consult them aft er the bill becomes the law. We’ll consult them on the regulations that I write up later. ” [1455] Th at’s frightening. People in British Columbia aren’t in any mood to give him any kind of benefi t of the doubt on something this far-reaching, this important.

People in British Columbia have learned, unfortunately, that they

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7671 actually can’t take this Minister of Education at his word. Last summer, recall, when this government kept tweet- ing and saying that it was sitting down 24-7, working its hardest to get to a settlement, and then we fi nd out it had one meeting in August. Th at’s it. Th en they said: “No, Vince Ready’s not available. ” “We don’t want him here right now. ” No, let it play out. ” Th ey let opportunity aft er opportunity…. “Let’s get locked in a room. ” “Let’s unlock the room and let it dissipate. ” Th ey blew it time and time again.

That 24-7 meant one meeting in one month, and it meant that the school disruption that happened on September 2, which nobody wanted in British Columbia, happened and dragged on for three weeks aft er a two- week school shutdown before. Isn’t it interesting, now that it’s all over, that you can’t even fi nd Vince Ready in a press release or a photo op for this government — the guy who saved the day, saved this government from themselves? Th at’s the thanks he gets. Th at’s an aside. British Columbians have learned you can’t take this minister at his word through this budget process.

Remember, through all that labour disruption, the minis- ter said, the Premier said: “Don’t worry, this contract’s go- ing to be fully funded when we get there. We got this. It’s ours. ” And that’s the least this minister could have done. Don’t forget that the 25,000 support staff that reached a settlement last spring were entirely funded by school districts, who don’t have the money to fund that sort of thing, from administrative savings. Now he’s back at the same well again. Well, what he said as recently as late September about fully funding the cost of the teachers’ contract….

Lo and behold, in the budget lockup in February, when school trustees were there — and let’s face it, their expectations were already pretty much in the basement, but they did hold on to that promise because the minister made it so many times — fully funded all of a sudden wasn’t fully funded on budget day. It was a $55 million cut that comes out of the ability to pay for the negotiated increases for teachers. He didn’t keep his word.

He said, actually, the other week that underfunding is a myth in B.C., that parents actually don’t have to raise money for the sorts of things, the menu of items, that used to be basic and part of the education package. When this minister says “collaboration, ” as he has in his introductory remarks about what the professional de- velopment clauses of this bill represent, can anybody take him at his word? Th e word “collaboration” in a Liberal thesaurus means something absolutely different — a word that’s probably not parliamentary, and I’ll avoid it. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] Th is bill is moving too fast, as well — too far and too fast — because what it represents is rushed legislation. As I mentioned at the outset, and I’ll come back to this point, it has not had any meaningful consultation with trustees, with parents and with professional teachers about what its implications are, what motivates it and why it’s being introduced at this point in time — and why it’s being introduced without the benefi t of a full and open dia- logue, contrary to commitments the minister again has made, over and over and over again.

He even made them in a signed document called the memorandum of understanding, committing to part- ner and consult with school trustees on major initia- tives within his ministry. Th at was signed on December 4. When I said that this government can’t be trusted to keep its word and it varies from one month to the next…. Th at was four months ago — signing a document wit- nessed by hundreds of people at the B.C. School Trustees Association.

Y ou’ d think it could be lived up to, that 4-month-old document, around a major piece of legisla- tion that amends the School Act, but it doesn’t. [1500] Th at’s also why Bill 11 should be withdrawn — because these key parties weren’t given any say. Th at’s a recipe for bad legislation. Not only is it bad form and bad protocol, it breeds bad legislation when you make laws like that.

When I said at the beginning of this debate, also, that what people are talking about — in the playgrounds and assembly rooms and in the administration offices of school districts where elected offi cials are in the budget- making process right now — and what they want to be talking about with government is a completely diff erent conversation than what Bill 11 brings up. We have something incredible to celebrate here. It’s a public education system that has problems but large- ly works for kids, for communities, for families.

When you think about it, it’s not easy to run a large and di- verse school system like the one that British Columbia has. And it absolutely benefi ts from the wisdom and the proximity that elected offi cials and administrators, with their talents and their pulse on the communities that they represent, provide to those communities. We want to have a conversation in British Columbia about the economy.

Why this government never talks about an investment in education being one of the key drivers to boost and make gains and increase the produc- tivity of an economy is beyond me, because every other successful jurisdiction that sees a growth rate that’s well above the rate of infl ation has made those kinds of invest- ments. Th at’s what people want to talk about in British Columbia — their hopes and aspirations for the educa- tion system. Y ou talk to new Canadians in this province, who have immigrated to this great place.

Y ou talk to those who have been here for successive generations, living in small or large communities. Talk to First Nations communities. Every one of them has an understanding that to be resili-

British Columbia Debates7672 Monday, April 27, 2015 ent, to make your way in the world, to exist in this global- ized society that we now live in requires a solid education. Nine in ten kids in this province — even though this gov- ernment has tried everything to reduce that number — still attend public schools in British Columbia. What they want from this government, in making their kids more resilient and confi dent and able to go out and succeed in the world, is more choice and divers- ity in the programming and the opportunities that are off ered by the school systems where they live.

Th at’s the conversation they want to be having — not about min- isterial centralization of power. I mean, nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Maybe the minister could tell us how many letters he’s had from around British Columbia, since he’s been min- ister for the last two years, saying: “Y ou know, Minister, I think you need more power. Th at’s the way forward in British Columbia. Th at’s what we should be talking about, to drive better results in public education. ” Put your hand up if it’s a zero, Minister. I’m guessing it’s zero letters. Now compare that to your inbox currently.

Let’s go back — oh, I don’t know — the last three weeks, since Bill 11 was sprung on British Columbians. Y ou’ve got a pretty signifi cant stack of letters there, don’t you? I only get cc’ d on some of them, so I can only imagine how many hun- dreds of letters there are in your inbox telling you that Bill 11 is a bad idea that nobody wants and nobody asked for. We are reliant upon public education in this province to develop our economy.

Th at is the single best lever and strategy that we have in B.C. [1505] If we want to have a citizenry that is innovative, cre- ative, that is democratic in its mindset and its thinking, socially minded…. If we want a province that continues to encompass people of all social and economic back- grounds, we need to have a school system that is there for them, that is providing for their needs. Based on our history and based on the outlook that we have about the future of this province and maintaining our well-being, this reliance is entirely well placed.

Th e development of individuals — and collectively for us — to make contributions to what is a bold and suc- cessful multicultural society that we live in is completely unimaginable without our public education system. It is K-to-12 education and the access and expansion to higher education that has made the aspirations of British Columbians an achievable possibility and a reality.

I can’t think of any other investment we have made in our province to make it prosperous, to make it just, to make it a livable place that is good and decent, with rising living standards for all, with rights and freedoms that are enjoyed — to build a life, to raise a family…. Nothing in the history of this province has provided more substantial and sustained dividends than our investment in public education. It’s time to renew that investment. Th at’s the debate we should be having in British Columbia. Th at’s why what people talk about in my community and communities around B.C., the ones that I visited….

It’s not the contents of Bill 11, these absurd amendments in sum total. Th ey’re talking about this government’s re- cord over 14 years. Th ey’re talking about, in particular, the last eight years, because we have recent reporting that shows what I think is so unforgivable in light of what I’ve just said about sustaining prosperity in B.C. and the need for investment in education to keep those dividends pay- ing off for individuals.

What British Columbians are aware of under this gov- ernment is that we’ve actually declined from the second- best-funded jurisdiction in Canada to now the second worst — the second worst behind Prince Edward Island, I might add. It’s a pretty small jurisdiction. We’re now $1,000 below the per-pupil funding average in Canada. In 2006 we were at the average. Oh, the minister is scoffi ng. I know. He likes to be just like the Stephen Harper government and say that Stats Canada can’t be trusted, but I’m citing Statistics Canada. It’s an apples-to-apples comparison. B.C. is second last in the country.

Don’t take my word for it. Take it from the taxpayer-funded statistical agency of Canada. Don’t take it from the Liberal spin doctor points or the press re- leases, because those are numbers you can never believe. I’ll take Stats Canada any day over a Liberal press release. Maybe the minister would take the news better if it came from — I don’t know — a business organiza- tion. How about the Conference Board of Canada?

Th e Conference Board of Canada, which has scolded British Columbia, published a recent report that shows that of all of the western Canadian provinces, British Columbia is dead last — and has been for the last six years — on fund- ing. Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba — some of those economies growing a lot faster than British Columbia — have made much, much more signifi cant investments. Y ou know, we’re in the same country, but we’re compet- ing with those provinces as well. It’s the Conference Board of Canada’s view that this government’s complacency is going to be damaging over time. Th at’s not the NDP .

It’s the Conference Board of Canada that said that, and people want to talk about that in British Columbia. Th ey also look at this budget. I’ll go back to this point again. Th ey also look at Bill 11. Y ou know, it’s just a little bit overshadowed by the recent budget that this govern- ment introduced, the one that said the teachers’ contract would be fully funded — and then it wasn’t — the budget that actually gave the top 2 percent a $230 million tax cut while all these unfunded needs in our communities and our schools continue to go unfunded and now get worse with a $55 million cut. What a dichotomy.

Th at’s what people in British Columbia want to talk…. How could they make that a priority? [1510] We had a Finance Committee. Th ere are some mem-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7673 bers here on both sides of the House that were part of that committee. Th ey should be patted on the back for going out and consulting British Columbians — some- thing the minister should have done on Bill 11 and never did. Th ey went out and said: “What are your priorities for the budget?” Nobody said a $230 million tax cut for the top 2 percent — nobody. How did it…? In fact, they recommended stable, consistent, predictable multi-year funding for education. Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker? R. Fleming: I am, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on. R. Fleming: And yet here we are, debating Bill 11 with a backdrop, a context of a $230 million tax cut that no- body asked for, that the legislative Finance Committee of this assembly heard from nobody about. Th ey heard and made recommendations — thoughtful recommen- dations, bipartisan recommendations — to make this budget an opportunity to address some of the problems that I’ve already discussed this aft ernoon in the educa- tion sector, and they were completely, utterly ignored by this government.

Perhaps that’s why, in light of the budget, this gov- ernment seeks the distraction of Bill 11. Th ey’ve got to know that British Columbians are not going to buy into their cynicism about our schools. Maybe they’re gam- bling that if the noise in public education is distracted by bad legislation, parents will tune out from this debate, or the debate we should be having in British Columbia of how we transform a very good education system into one that is truly great.

Maybe that’s the government’s strategy: distract with bad legislation and overcrowd the issues around funding, which communities are dealing with right now. I think it’s quite clear that this government wants to de- grade the debate that we should be having and make it a demoralizing exercise that is legalistic, as in Bill 11, and confi ned, ultimately, to their continued agenda of con- fl ict, power and control. I think that’s what the Liberals are doing. Th e teachers were the bad guys, according to the gov- ernment.

Th ey’ve spent hundreds of thousands or mil- lions of dollars of your tax money to tell you so, while the school system has spiralled out of control and your schools were shut to your kids. But now they’ve got a new bad opponent. It’s called school boards, elected offi cials. “We can’t trust them. We need a nanny state in Victoria to second-guess all their decisions. ” We’re going to upset the balance of power that we’ve had for decades in B.C. because the minister right now thinks that’s a good idea. Th at’s the distraction that the Liberals seek to create. Now we’re not talking about the budget cuts, are we?

We’re talking about a bad bill that nobody wants. Except it’s not working. It’s not working. Let’s be clear. Bill 11 supporters, in this province of millions of citizens, barely number in the dozens. Y ou would have to prob- ably turn over one solitary rock to see the scurrying, scant support for this bill. Y ou’ d have to look across our vast province to fi nd the sum total of nodding heads in agree- ment with this bill. And the only place that you can fi nd them is over there on that side of the House, nowhere else in the province of British Columbia.

Support — if I can call it that, in all its meagreness — for Bill 11 is literally limited to the minister responsible; to the Premier; and very likely, sadly, to the whipped votes of this government. Th at’s all there is to the lim- ited, insular extent of support for this arrogant and ill- conceived legislation. Who the members opposite — the back bench of the Liberal Party, who I would like to appeal to today — should be talking to are their colleagues, the elected of- fi cials who administer our 60 school districts, the ones that come from all political stripes.

Most of them prob- ably count themselves as having no party affi liation or political background at all. Th at’s not why they ran to be elected offi cials on the school boards. Th ey wanted to get in there to make a diff erence in their community. Th ey took their responsibility seriously. Some of them, I think 40 percent of our school trustees, were elected for the fi rst time just this past November.

Th ey were elected under the rules and the legislation in the School Act that we had, which gave them serious re- sponsibilities that they understood and ran to uphold. [1515] Now those responsibilities are being stripped away by a bill that can impose cyborg-like special advisers any time this minister sees fi t to do it, on his orders alone — no cabinet scrutiny, let alone legislative scrutiny. All we’re getting is the next two stages of debate to look at how wrong-headed this step can be and how disastrous it can be for the province of B.C.

Remaking the balance of planning and oversight, the fi duciary responsibilities that are codifi ed in the School Act, in one fell swoop, as this minister proposes to do — that’s why this legislation is so wrong-headed. It shreds the historic partnership of delivering public education in a co-governed manner in our regionally diverse province. It gives the minister more unchecked power to do as he will on a mere whim — without, as I mentioned, cabinet consent, as limited as a constraint as that may have been in the past, without even that — going forward.

Ministerial orders can be made, taking away the rights and responsibilities of those who actually administer and deliver public education in our province. History is not really all that kind to rash government experiments that centralize power and control, are they? We can all think of programs pursued by government — or IT system

British Columbia Debates7674 Monday, April 27, 2015 disasters, if I want to bring it up to date — centralizing thrusts that weren’t well-thought-out in advance, steam- rolling over those local voices who play a role in provid- ing the service and ignoring them, ignoring the front line. Th at is almost always a recipe, in this province and others, for disaster. Th at’s why we need to have a second look at this bill, at the very least. Th at’s why we need the minister to live up to his commitments to consult people before the bill was introduced. He didn’t do it. So do it now. Do it now.

Th at’s the point that we hope to make at this stage of debate. Th ere are options. Th ere are ways he can do that. Perhaps we’ll see if we can bring him around to an amendment that would be able to achieve that. Maybe we can save him from the humilia- tion of once again reading his words that are so at odds with his legislative action. Maybe we can help him fulfi l a promise or a signed memorandum of understanding, a signed document, to consult with his education partners. Maybe we can help him to dial this thing back. We’ d be happy on this side of the House to give the minister a redo.

I think we can get around to saying he deserves that. Th ere are second chances. But pushing ahead and making a mistake like Bill 11, giving the min- ister more and more power that can be exercised from his comfortable chair in his offi ce without the say of those who actually deliver public education in B.C.? Th at can’t be undone once it’s done. So let’s have a redo, Minister. Let’s see if we can work on an amendment together. Let’s be clear. Th e minister — the government — hasn’t exactly shown the demonstrated urgency of getting Bill 11 through before the end of this spring legislative ses- sion.

Th ey haven’t. On any of these four areas touched upon in this bill, none of them are urgent. In fact, govern- ment did a rather bizarre kind of thing with blocks and circles on it that promised there would be dialogue, on something called an accountability framework.

Th ey didn’t say “on a draconian piece of legislation that gave the minister more power. ” But on an accountabil- ity framework aspect of this bill, I guess, they promised the B.C. parent advisory committee, local DPACs, and school principals and trustees that they’ d have a say on any changes on the accountability framework that they had in mind, and they never did it. [1520] I want to show the House the sum total of the govern- ment’s consultation on this bill. It’s right here. One page — March 26, 2015. It was put out fi ve minutes aft er the bill was tabled.

Th at’s when the consultation began and ended in the province of British Columbia. Th at’s the dia- logue. A one-page typed monologue is the dialogue that we had on Bill 11. Th at’s all it is. And the people who write this stuff ? Wow, they’re good at obfuscation. Let me just quote from the back of this document. “Th e legislation sets the foundation and the starting point. We look forward to working with our edu- cation partners on approaches and solutions that better meet the needs of students. ” What does that mean? It doesn’t say anything about fi ring school boards and handing himself new powers.

It doesn’t say anything about taking over the entire pro- fessional development regime for professional teachers in B.C. It’s not in there. Th is is the dialogue. Th is is the consultation right here. Y ou paid for it. We all paid for it, the taxpayers of British Columbia, and nobody got any. I’ve made the case, I think, that it’s illegitimate legis- lation because there was no meaningful advance discus- sion prior to the draft ing stage of this bill. It denied any consultation and input with all the key stakeholders. But I want to suggest to you that it’s also dangerous legislation.

I think this is a dangerous bill because it threatens to supplant and bypass elected trustees. It attempts to cen- tralize and bureaucratize the most important lever to drive improvement in our schools and the successful outcome of hundreds of thousands of today’s and tomor- row’s future students by seizing control of professional development of teachers by a bureaucracy which, aft er 14 Liberal years, quite frankly doesn’t have the capacity to take on new responsibilities around professional de- velopment. It’s going to fail.

Th ere’s no capacity there to rip away professional de- velopment from local school districts and schools and the teaching profession and move it all over to Victoria. Who’s going to do the work? Th ere’s no plan behind this. It’s ridiculous. Th ere’s no vision for it either. I’ve looked everywhere. I go back to my one-page sheet. Th ere’s no vision to do this. It’s made up on the fl y. So what’s the real agenda here?

Why would B.C., at odds with all of the progressive jurisdictions that are actually investing and working with teachers on profes- sional development reforms, in contradiction to all of the best practices in the world that we have looked upon, in- cluding the international experts that the minister fl ew to the Wosk Centre in Vancouver in January? Th ey came here. I was a little bit skeptical about the cost and wondered who’ d be in the room. I quite enjoyed myself at this summit on education.

I made a lot of notes at that meeting, and I thanked the minister for the invi- tation again; I think I thanked him before. I’m just going back over my notes again. We had a gentleman from the OECD in Europe talk about the European experience and Canada’s ranking in the world. It was the opinion of the OECD, based on volumes of research from jurisdictions right around the globe, the industrialized countries…. Th e conclusion, which was a powerful one, is that the best investment a country can make is in the professional development of teachers.

And the way you do it — whether it’s Finland or another place where they’re making substantive investments, the Netherlands or Britain — is that you grant a huge amount of autonomy to the teaching profession to shape what that agenda looks like.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, April 27, 2015 7675 [1525] Teachers aren’t any diff erent from any other profession. Th ey want to stay on top of their game. Th ey’re profes- sionals. Th ey want to sharpen their skills. Th ey want to review the pedagogy. We’re learning incredible amounts of things all the time in various fi elds of science about how learning happens or doesn’t happen. I mean, just think of….

Well, I’ll go back to another speaker that the minister brought to that conference, a neuroscientist from Toronto who talked about how much we’ve learned just in the last decade and a half about ado- lescent development and learning strategies that actually go along with the anthropology and physiology of the hu- man being at that stage in their life. We’re getting better at it all the time, but we’re getting better at it because the teaching profession is centrally involved.

Th is model in this bill opens the door to having a com- pletely top-down model of professional development for teachers that is imposed upon them, that eradicates au- tonomy and eradicates all of the things that have proven to be successful in other countries. Why would we do that? Th at is so ill-considered. Y ou know, the government actually paid people who came here, fl ew here in some cases, and told them exact- ly the opposite of what is in Bill 11 today. Th at was three months ago. Why would you bring those people here and then not listen to them? It’s absurd.

It’s bad enough that we’re not listening to school boards or British Columbia teachers; we’re not even listening to the international ex- perts who were brought here to give camoufl age, presum- ably, to the ridiculousness of this bill. I think he already it in mind what he was going to do around professional development. It’s wrong. What we heard at that conference and what we hear from teachers themselves is that the reason why there has to be a high degree of autonomy in teacher profes- sional development is because teachers learn from other teachers. New teachers learn from experienced teachers.

Experienced teachers learn from new teachers. Th ey share their experiences. Th ey work together. Th ey set their pri- orities on what is best for their school, because no school in B.C. is alike, entirely. School populations diff er great- ly, depending on what community you’re talking about. Th at’s why teachers need to fi gure out what are the most urgent things to develop in their professional skill set at the school where they actually teach at. No bureau- crat in Victoria is ever going to be able to do that eff ect- ively. It’s absurd.

Th at’s what we risk losing by signing this blank cheque legislation that can seize control entirely of teacher professional development. I read a very interesting column by Geoff Johnson, who is, of course, a retired superintendent and has a very interesting regular column here in B.C. He said, im- mediately aft er Bill 11 was introduced…. He hadn’t had the benefi t of being able to dwell upon it or give it close reading, I presume, but he said: “I hope we can assume three things.

First, that along with the proposed legisla- tion there is actually a plan. ” Teacher professional de- velopment — nope, there’s no plan. Don’t assume that with this government. He says: “Second, that somebody in the Education Ministry has provided a background paper as to what kind of staff development has been found to be most ef- fective in other government departments. ” No — asked for that in the estimates. No such thing. “ And third, that specifi c funding has been identifi ed to accomplish an upgrading of staff development for B.C. ’s teachers. ” No. No new funding for professional develop- ment.

Now, it’s interesting in reading the international litera- ture — some, again, which was provided for the confer- ence that I enjoyed attending, that the minister sponsored — that one of the reasons why Finland, which I know is a very well-studied jurisdiction…. Why their model of professional development is emulated and well studied is because in 2009 the Finnish Ministry of Education, in collaboration with teachers, began to double the public funding for teacher professional development. All the way through to 2016 they ramped it up. Th ey had a plan. [1530] British Columbia has no plan. Y ou know what?

If we have no plan, we shouldn’t give this government a law. We shouldn’t give this government a law that has no plan behind it. Th at is dangerous legislation. Now, I mentioned that I don’t think the Ministry of Education, after 14 years of ravaging by this govern- ment, has the capacity to take this function on, although they’re handing it to themselves through this proposed law. I would actually note that several senior positions in the ministry, who’ve actually given a vision in recent years to the government’s own education plan, are fl ee- ing the ship.

Th ey’re all leaving the ministry, so there’s a huge drain in the capacity that has already been reduced. Th ey’re taking their professional expertise elsewhere, to other school districts and other places. Y ou know what’s really hard to understand about this bill? It’s so poorly motivated by the government — that press release, everything I’ve heard, the minister’s intro- ductory remarks. Th is bill doesn’t even align with the script that this government has written about its so-called record and how it would like to frame it for itself. It actually contradicts the Premier’s message from last October.

I’ll go back to that message again. She told everybody in British Columbia: “Now is the time to heal. ” Th is bill is not healing our school system, and the Premier should explain how her words have become this bad proposed law. We don’t want the roller-coaster pattern that British Columbians have come to endure from this government. It’s a deceitful, divisive and confrontational pattern that’s distracted and detracted from our school system for far, far too long.

British Columbia Debates7676 Monday, April 27, 2015 It began, if we want to go right back, with the uncon- stitutional act of ripping up and removing class-size and composition rules enshrined in legal contracts in 2003. I guess we have to stay tuned on that front this Th ursday. Th e government has lost twice in the province’s highest court on that act. Th at was government’s entry point into the beginning of a decade of confrontation.

It goes on and on, year aft er year, both in their funding decisions, their funding record through the budget, and also in activities like what we lived through last year — two disrupted school years back to back, no end in sight. Th ere is huge dissatisfaction right now in the school system. People are still smarting from the beginning of September. Th e lesson plans have not been adopted to en- sure that the curric

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150427pm-Hansard-v24n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150427pm Hansard v24n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7d362991d54d3698f034507c2dcabb7d35eef7f4

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).