British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 28, 2015

20150428pm-Hansard-v24n7

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) Tuesday, April 28, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 7

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 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 7745 Bill 11 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) A. Dix K. Corrigan M. Mungall A. Weaver C. Trevena D. Routley B. Ralston S. Robinson G. Holman K. Conroy V .

Huntington Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7785 Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training (continued) K. Conroy Hon. S. Bond S. Simpson G. Heyman D. Donaldson D. Eby Hon. N. Y amamoto Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) D. Eby Hon. T. Stone

TUESDAY , APRIL 28, 2015 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 11, and, in the other cham- ber, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. We expect that around 4 p.m., for the information of members, we will then move into the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Second Reading of Bills BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (continued) A.

Dix: It’s great to join the debate on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, the government’s latest contribution to what I think we all would hope would be a collective eff ort to improve public education at a time when public education, and education in gen- eral, is more important for young people — for adults, of course, as well — than I think it has ever been. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] If one looks at the growing inequality of our province, the diff erence between those who have access to high- quality education — who are able to pursue post-second- ary education, whether it be in skills and training or in other fi elds — and those that don’t is growing and con- tinues to grow, not just in British Columbia but across Canada and, indeed, across the world.

So one would think that a government at this point in time would be inspired to join a collective eff ort to improve our public education system. [1335] Indeed, not just now, but, sadly, for the last 14 years, we’ve had a government that sees the public education system as a means to divide, a means to impose its ideo- logical agenda, a means to score political points. In fact, this, sadly, is not just the subject of political debate where one side can have an opinion and the other can’t.

It is found again and again in the documentary evidence of the courts, where this government has routinely and re- peatedly found itself. Now, compare the attitude of the government, as ex- pressed through Bill 11 and expressed through the 14 years of education policy that has preceded it, and the attitude of people in communities. I think that there is a profound diff erence. In the coming week, I will be at- tending events — for example, at Renfrew Elementary School, where parents and teachers and students are get- ting together to do a fall fair.

It’s a school where parents and students and teachers and support staff work regu- larly to address and create a learning environment that is second to none in the world. Th at’s what’s happening on Th ursday at Renfrew Elementary School. On Saturday at Nootka Elementary School, also in my constituency, at 1 p.m. I’ll be in the dunk tank. Just as an update, there will also be…. Interjection. A. Dix: Th e Minister of Agriculture — I’ve attracted his attention. He may be postponing his trip to Kelowna this weekend, just for this purpose. Interjection. A.

Dix: I think it’s up to the minister to make a con- tribution. He has a considerable stipend over there. Hopefully it won’t inspire him to sell agricultural land to contribute more. In any event, at Nootka Elementary School this week- end…. In this case a whole community around the school got together to build a new playground and won what has become a national contest put on by the Aviva insurance corporation to allow community projects from across the country to compete for funding from this private fund. Nootka Elementary School was one of ten winners across the country.

It required students and parents and teachers and the whole community around Nootka to get together to win that competition. Th is weekend, on Saturday, they will have a spring fair, just as Renfrew, not far away, will have one on Th ursday. At that event the whole community will come together to support programs at the school, at Nootka Elementary School, where arts programs make it a centre for people not just in the immediate neighbourhood but from dif- ferent parts of the city of Vancouver. Th e following Tuesday — next Tuesday, a week from today — at Cunningham Elementary, in my constitu- ency….

Four years of eff ort by parents and teachers and students and support staff and the neighbourhood to build a new playground at that school. It took four years, yet they worked cooperatively to do it during some of the most diffi cult times in public education. Last week at Gladstone Secondary School, also in my constituency…. I spoke about this before question per- iod today, the eff orts of Gladstone students and teachers to create a robotics program that is the envy of not just British Columbia but of the entire world.

Th ey participat- ed in Louisville, Kentucky, in the world championships, and they fi nished in the top ten again. Can you imagine? Th ey won the world championships 7745

British Columbia Debates7746 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 out of Gladstone. Th ey’ve redefi ned how many students who found themselves not having a path through second- ary school education fi nd a path. I know of students who had no plans — none — to attend post-secondary educa- tion until Todd Ablett, a teacher at Gladstone Secondary School, started the robotics program.

Last weekend there was a march for the planet organ- ized on Earth Day by Windermere students, supported by teachers who expressed their strong views on environ- mental issues, as they do at conferences throughout the world, bringing students together from across British Columbia and, indeed, connecting around the world. Th ey have a community garden that makes a huge dif- ference in the neighbourhood. Th ey support programs in all of the feeder elementary schools to Windermere. Th at’s what they’re doing. Th at’s what parents and stu- dents and school boards are doing.

They’re working together in all of those schools and others across British Columbia to do their best to create the best public educa- tion system possible. In the spirit of cooperation — that’s how they operate on the ground. [1340] Contrast the approach that built those programs and built the playgrounds. Contrast the approach required for success in the classroom for students working together. At Gladstone students in grade 12 mentor students in grade 8.

Students beyond the program want to come back and mentor students to ensure that they have every access to opportunity in the future and have the joy of participating in such an event. Th at’s what they do. What does the government do? Well, it is, I think, probably not wise to dwell too much on the government’s sorry record in this regard — how, on January 28, 2002, they imposed Bill 28 and ripped up contracts and ripped up supports for class size and composition. That was their approach then. That approach con- tinued through that decade.

Th ere were people who grew up, went to kindergarten and graduated in that period of Liberal government where, at every possible occasion, the government used the education system to gain pol- itical advantage, poke people in the eye, create division around education. Y ou see some remnants of it in the legislation here. Th e councils that were created as one of the initiatives in those periods — already abandoned in this piece of legis- lation. Can one imagine?

Th en the return of the Minister of Education responsible for Bill 28 to the Legislature as Premier, a commitment, again, for a new approach, a new era in education. And what happened then? Well, we know this from court testi- mony: a deliberate eff ort for the partisan interests of the government, as admitted to by the government’s own ne- gotiators in court, to produce a strike, to provoke a strike. It was not because it was in the interests of students, because it wasn’t.

It was not because it was in the interests of the education system, because it plainly wasn’t, but be- cause it was in the political interests of the Liberal Party. Th en most recently, last year, the longest strike in the history of public education in British Columbia province- wide that had an impact, I think, on the whole system and from which that system is attempting to recover today. I pay tribute, I think, to teachers, students and parents who are making that happen in diffi cult circumstances. At the end of that strike….

Th ey said they’ d changed aft er 2002, and then they changed again when their legis- lation in 2002 was found to be illegal in the courts be- cause they didn’t take the steps necessary, in part, before introducing the legislation. Th is will have resonance with this piece of legislation. And then again and again and again they’ve been found out to not play by the rules with respect to public education. Which brings us….

Well, that’s the context: what people in the education system do to make things work and what the government has done to make them not work, to pursue another agenda that isn’t about having the best possible public education at a time when public education is more important than ever. What do we have? We have a piece of legislation, Bill 11, that follows this long strike, where more promises were made, as they’ve been repeatedly made in the past. “We’ve changed. We understand. We’re not going to play confrontation politics in our children’s classroom any- more.

We repent. ” Th is is the message every time by the government, but repentance seems to always be waiting. As an additional opportunity for confrontation avails itself to the govern- ment, they pursue, sadly, that role again. We saw it in the budget that this bill is intrinsically linked to, when the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope were downplaying the impact of these signifi cant cuts and downloading that that budget re- fl ected. But in Chilliwack and in Hope, in Harrison Hot Springs and in Vancouver-Kingsway the result is the same: cuts in the classroom.

Nothing else but cuts in the classroom as a result of the Liberal budget that was intro- duced and passed by the government, contrary to what they said they would do. So $54 million in cuts. It’s $29 million this year, $25 mil- lion next year on the administrative side. Cumulatively, $54 million — on top of increases in B.C. Hydro rates, which all those schools have to pay and which increase cost, increase in MSP premiums, unfunded contracts and the like. [1345] In my school district the result of that is $8.9 million that they have to fi nd in additional to all of the other cuts — $8.9 million.

Y ou would see that refl ected from Chilliwack-Hope to everywhere else in British Columbia. Aft er we have seen reduction aft er reduction over ten years, $8.9 million is not easy to fi nd. Th en we have now the introduction of Bill 11. Aft er the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7747 government’s bills were found to be illegal in the courts because they refused to consult properly and refused to negotiate in good faith, we have another imposition of legislation without talking to anybody — without talk- ing to teachers, without talking to school boards. School boards have responded, I think, appropriately by oppos- ing these eff orts. What is the intention of the legislation?

Th ey’ve con- cluded that aft er Bill 28, aft er their eff orts to provoke strikes, aft er 14 years of imposing their vision on things, that the real problem in public education…. Can you guess what the Liberal Party thinks the real problem in public education is? It’s that the Liberal government doesn’t have enough power. Th e problem isn’t classroom class size and composition. Th e problem isn’t the modern challenge of education. Th e problem isn’t funding. Th e problem isn’t any of those things.

It’s that: “We don’t have enough power, so we’ve decided to put in place another piece of legislation that gives our Minister of Education more power to impose his will. ” School districts, remember — and this is the circum- stance in British Columbia — have no ability to raise their own funds. When they get cut and they have funds and costs downloaded on them, they have no option but to make cuts. Th e member for Chilliwack-Hope rightly talks about the differing roles of government and school boards. What the school boards have had to do is to make cuts in the classroom.

Th ey have, in eff ect, shielded the govern- ment from the consequences of their policy. Th e member is right. It is the Liberal government’s re- sponsibility that cuts have to be made to the quality of education in British Columbia because of this budget. He is exactly right in saying that it is the Liberal govern- ment’s responsibility. School boards’ responsibility is to protect as best as they can the public education system. What this bill does is take away some of the means by which school boards can do that. How does it do it? First of all, it centralizes.

Th is is very important in our constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. It gives the Minister of Education more power to deal with school property — to sell school property, to create opportunities on school lands for developers at a time when land is scarce. Th e minister has decided, “Th is a power I would like” — not local communities, not elected school boards who’ve had that power. “I would like control. ” So he has brought to himself that power. He has brought to himself, without talking to the B.C. Teachers Federation, power over the training of teachers, over the ongoing professional de- velopment of teachers.

Aft er all of the talk of a new era and a new relationship, they bring in legislation without talk- ing to teachers on that very subject. Can you imagine it? Th ey’ve brought together the power to impose their will on school boards with respect to shared services. Th is is a power that they used to use by employing budget- ary means. We remember BCeSIS. We remember it well, that experience that was the experience of the British Columbia enterprise student information system which the government introduced — shared services gone hay- wire, cost the taxpayers $100 million, wasted years of time in education.

Utterly failed and had to be withdrawn by the government. Th at is the example why the government feels it needs to have the power to impose in this area, without any consul- tation with school boards, why the minister wants to take upon himself…. Again, the Liberal vision of education is that our problem in the system is a lack of power for the B.C.

Liberals. “Th at’s the problem we have to solve, so I am going to allow myself to pick and choose, to increase my control, to embarrass school districts, to try and impose my ideological agenda” — without taking any responsibil- ity for the consequences in classrooms for those decisions. [1350] I have never heard, not one time, not ever, a B.C. Liberal stand up and say: “We were wrong to do BCeSIS. We were wrong to impose it on school districts. We were wrong to waste people’s money and time. ” Th ey have never admitted responsibility.

I guess the fact that they absolutely, categorically had to withdraw the disastrous program should have been seen to be enough, but never have they taken responsibil- ity. And now they want to pick and choose, and use new powers in the law that go aft er school districts. Having imposed their pressure on them through cuts, contrary to what they said they would do, they want to impose more pressure on them to pick and choose on decision-making. Th is is why school districts have, rightly, responded to this question.

My friend, the chair of the school district in Vancouver, Christopher Richardson, has described the minister’s proposals under Bill 11 as “reshuffl ing the chairs of the Titanic.” It’s a time of restraint at the school board level. Th erefore, we have to recycle metaphors from the past.

School trustee and longtime chair of the board Patti Bacchus talked about administrative directives in for- cing school boards to sell off land as if the experience of the current government, which was to sell off permanent assets of the government for a one-time budgetary bene- fi t, should be the policy of every public institution across the whole province. Y ou can see it in the comments of the Burnaby school board chair, Ron Burton, who said: “It appears that this government does not want to cooperate with anyone in education, whether it be teachers or trustees.

Th ey talk a great game about consultation, but they never do it. ” I’m not sure he’s correct on that point. I don’t think they talk such a good game, but he’s being generous here. “They make announcements and afterwards back- pedal, saying they want to discuss it. ” Th e current struc- ture works well, according to Mr. Burton. “Bill 11 is an attempt to fi x a system that is not broken. ”

British Columbia Debates7748 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 In short, therefore, we have a government that has de- stabilized the system through this kind of policy for more than a decade, that is imposing cuts that school boards across British Columbia, cut aft er cut, are having an im- possible time sustaining and that now wants to remove from democratically elected school boards some of their powers so that the minister will have the power to im- pose his will but will take none of the responsibility for the consequences of his action.

Th is has been the case again and again and will be the case and is the case under Bill 11. Why would it be that aft er the decade we have emerged from in education, this would be the approach the minis- ter would take? Why would he not sit down with teach- ers and sit down with school boards and, in fact, address issues. If he thinks he has issues to bring to the table, do so in a matter of actual consultation. Instead, we have another law, another stick. Th ey cannot help themselves.

Th ey want to give orders, to quote from the bill, on matters “specifi ed by the min- ister. ” He gets to make the decisions in private. When a public light is shone on those situations, we see the same thing that happened when they went before the courts, which is to attempt to hide what their position was in the court record from public eyes. Fortunately, they were not successful in that case. What do we need to do in public education? It seems to me that the minister could go down one of two paths with respect to Bill 11.

He could attempt to learn from the last 13 years — the 13 years since the government brought in Bill 28. He could attempt to address issues of class size and composition, not to make things worse but to make things better in our classrooms. He could at- tempt to rebuild a new relationship with teachers, based on trust.

He could attempt to set high goals for our prov- ince’s education and provide the supports necessary so that we, together, can achieve those goals. [1355] If you set high goals for education in British Columbia, you will fi nd everybody wanting to join in, in a collect- ive eff ort to achieve those goals. Th ose are the things you could do. Or you could do this approach again, this ap- proach that has failed again and again — failed our chil- dren, failed our communities.

Y ou could go down this path again and introduce legislation, by surprise, that attempts to impose dictates from above, that has an ap- proach to public education that says the minister knows best but, again, will not ever take responsibility for his or her actions. Y ou could go down that road. Sadly, Bill 11 again takes us down that sorry road. Why doesn’t the minister do one of two things? Do what he ought to do in this case, which is to understand that this bill has a context, and that context has been one of 13 years of government-imposed confrontation, and say: “I’ve made a mistake here.

More confrontation is not what we need at this time. “I’m going to not pass this legislation now and sit down with school trustees and the B.C. Teachers Federation. I’m going to not impose $54 million in cuts now. I am going to allow school boards and school children and parents and teachers to recover from what has been a disastrous few years for public education — refl ected in enrolment numbers and in parents’ and children’s chal- lenges in dealing with the government’s policy. “I am not going to continue to impose this kind of thing from above, these new powers from above.

I am going to reject the idea that the problem in education that needs solving is that the Liberal Party doesn’t have enough power but, instead, understand that to achieve long-term success in education requires the sharing of responsibility and the sharing of decision-making, something that has long and always been refl ected in our system. ” Th e minister has a choice.

We are optimistic and hope- ful that he will make the right choice, that he will hear voices in this Legislature, not just from the opposition side but voices in British Columbia that have gone from everywhere I’ve gone and that have said to the minister: “Th is is the wrong approach in general, and it’s certainly the wrong approach now. ” I am calling on the minister to join with us in opposing this legislation, in saying not now and in sitting down and talking for the fi rst time ever — to not continue down a path that has failed us and, worst of all, failed our chil- dren, to withdraw Bill 11, to sit down, to listen to the legitimate concerns of everyone in the educational com- munity and to withdraw this bill.

In the meantime, I and my colleagues, I think it’s fair to say, will continue to make the case on behalf of schools and children and parents and teachers in our commun- ities who have said: “Enough of this. Enough of this ap- proach which has failed us. ” Let’s work together to make a better public education system for all. K. Corrigan: I’m pleased to rise to speak about Bill 11, which I am strongly opposed to.

I think it’s interesting that we see no members from the other side, none of the Liberals, standing up to say why the signifi cant changes that wrest control, take control, from locally elected school boards are good. I think the members of the other side just really don’t want to get up and defend it. I think many of them probably recognize that this is a very bad bill. Any time you have…. Interjection. K. Corrigan: I hear a member close by saying that that’s never stopped them before.

When you have a bill, like Bill 11, that is universally criticized by those that have a stake and knowledge and interest and concern in a fi eld like education; when you have universal condemnation from school boards, from

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7749 teachers, from parents; when you have everybody who is concerned and passionate about public education and is invested in public education and works hard in public education and understands public education…. [1400] When all of those groups are opposed to a piece of legislation, to me that’s a very legitimate sign that there are major problems with that bill. Unfortunately, the gov- ernment continues to go through with this process and seems determined to have this bill pass.

As I’ve said in this chamber many times, I was a school trustee for nine years and chair of our school board in Burnaby for the last two of those years. Before that, I was a parent who volunteered hundreds and hundreds of hours in the elementary and high schools that my four children went to in the city of Burnaby, which is part of the Burnaby school district. Boards of education have been around for over 100 years. The B.C.

School Trustees, which is very, very critical and very concerned about this legislation, is very concerned about the fact that its supposed equal co-gov- ernance model that was signed — an agreement that there would be cooperation that was signed less than six months ago — has been utterly ignored in bringing this legislation. Th at B.C. School Trustees Association has been around since 1905. It is local school boards. It is local, concerned citizens that have come together to provide public educa- tion in this province. It came from the local.

Public edu- cation came from the local, from local citizens concerned and creating schools and creating boards that have, in the case of my school district, 110 years of experience, ex- perience that is very sophisticated and does a great job in my community. I know that the local board and its leadership, the ad- ministrators, the teachers, the support staff , the parents and the students that we are doing this all for — they all do the very best. Th ey are very effi cient, very eff ective with each dollar.

Th e suggestion that measures in this bill will somehow yield what has been called low-hanging fruit is absolutely outrageous. My district — Burnaby, district 41 — is no diff erent than many, many other districts in that there are no ef- fi ciencies to be had, absolutely no effi ciencies to be had. Boards have been working for years now, working in cooperation with each other, in order to share services where appropriate. Nobody knows better than those boards do.

Th e secretary-treasurer of my district is the president — or was; I’m not sure if he still is — of the secretary- treasurers of the province of British Columbia. Th ere is nobody more eff ective than those secretary-treasurers in doing the right thing and making sure they squeeze every single dollar and make sure that it’s eff ectively used. Th e reason they’re doing that, part of the reason — they’ve al- ways done that — is they have had to deal with shrinking budgets year aft er year aft er year. Th e suggestion, from a government which is incompetent dealing with money….

Let’s think about the government that is suggesting we’re going to have effi ciencies and they’re going to dir- ect boards about how to do things more effi ciently than my local school board and school boards around this province. Th is is a government that imposed BCeSIS for $100 million — a database, $100 million — not to mention the millions of dollars of time that was wasted over the years, over the many years, that that system was imposed and paid for by local districts. We have a system imposed by this government that has been a complete fl op and is now being dropped.

Th is is a government, a ministry and a minister that says: “We can do better than local boards. ” Th e effi ciencies, the programs, the eff ectiveness, the leadership and the creativity and innovation in education has come primarily from local boards, local teachers and local leadership. To suggest that somehow this central- ized control will improve things is absolutely ridiculous. [1405] Y ou know, there’s a principle of subsidiarity which says that in government what you should be doing….

Having the power to act should belong to the people that are closest to the problem that needs to be solved — on the grounds that those people, those players, are considered the most eff ective. Th at is the presumption that should be the starting point. Th at is the local school boards. Th at is the pre- sumption that needs to be rebutted. But I’ve heard ab- solutely nothing from this government with regard to local boards that says why it is that this legislation needs to be put into place. I remember that we had a superintendent, Sheila Rooney.

She used to come away from meetings with the ministry, and she’ d say: “Y ou know, I always ask them: what is the problem that the minister is trying to solve? What is the problem?” Th e main complaint that I’ve heard from all the stake- holders is that this legislation is not democratic — like so many other pieces of legislation, many of which have been struck down by the courts. But this is not democrat- ic. I think that is at the essence of this legislation. Th is is not democratic. My conclusion is that this minister does not like the fruits of democracy. Th is minister does not like people who criticize.

Instead of looking at the criticism that this govern- ment has been receiving for 14 years in their policies to- wards education, instead of looking at them and saying, “How can we do better?” what this minister wants to do, through this legislation, is shut down that controversy. It wants to shut down that opposition. It wants to shut down democracy as far as possible. Certainly, the provisions that boards can be replaced, that you can have advisers come in, that decisions can be imposed on local boards — those are not democratic kinds of decisions.

British Columbia Debates7750 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 I referenced the fact a few minutes ago that there were promises made recently — a co-governance agree- ment. A memorandum of understanding was signed just in December recognizing that school boards and the Ministry of Education — the school boards through their organization, the B.C. School Trustees Association, and the Ministry of Education, signed by the minister — had co-governance and that there was an equality there. It was recognized that school boards are the best partners to deliver education.

Th ose school boards — and I sat on a school board for nine years — meet every couple of weeks, or every week in some cases. Y ou as a parent or as a teacher or as a student or as a member of the community can come before that board and say what your concerns are. Y ou can come forward and say: “I have concerns. ” Or you can come forward and you can comment on programs. Y ou can go to committees and express concerns about a whole variety of things. Those boards are close to their community.

Those school trustees — they meet members of the commun- ity in the grocery store, and they do know what is best for local education. Th at is why it was important and positive that there be a memorandum of understanding that recognizes co- governance. Essentially, I think boards would actually do better if the provincial government just got out of the way and let them do what they do, because they do it very well. It seems to me the biggest problems that we have in education are when the provincial government interferes. Th at’s when we have problems. Th at’s when we have con- frontation.

Th is agreement that was signed in December by both parties said: “Th e parties recognize each other’s strengths and capabilities…. Th e parties are committed to cooperate in the spirit of partnership, particularly in the development of policies, programs, projects and funding options…. Any party proposing a change in policies or programs that will aff ect the other party will consult and collaborate with the other party to the fullest extent possible. ” [1410] Th at was a commitment signed with great smiles and fanfare fi ve months ago at the BCSTA convention.

What do we have at this BCSTA convention aft er this legisla- tion is brought in? No consultation, no discussion with the BCSTA, with individual boards, with the B.C. parent groups. No consultation whatsoever with the teachers, the B.C. Teachers Federation. No consultation over legis- lation that will make major changes to the relationship and will centralize control over many aspects of the edu- cation system. No consultation — completely ignoring. How does the ministry now respond?

Nobody — no- body — from the other side of the House gets up to speak and say that this is a good bill, because there is nothing defensible about it. It should be withdrawn. It should be rescinded. Nothing from the other side of the House. Th e BCSTA convention that happened just a few weeks ago — the minister doesn’t even have the courage to stand up and talk to trustees, doesn’t even show up, and instead, sends a videotaped message, which, I understand, was not at all well received.

Nobody — I don’t believe there was one member of the government, no Liberals — went to the BCSTA convention to explain themselves or discuss. What kind of relationship is that? I’m very, very concerned, as many, many boards are concerned, about the fact that this legislation gives the minister authority to compel school districts to take

part in shared-services agreements and gives the minis- ter power to appoint an offi cial administrator if a board fails to comply with orders that they have in a whole var- iety…. Matters specifi ed by the minister, so we don’t even know in what areas. It gives the minister power to force the sale of school properties. When we see the record of this government with regard to properties, it has to make boards very, very concerned — when they sell off properties at $45 million less than the appraised value, when they sell off properties, like in my community, that could have been used as a jewel.

When the city, the local government — which, frank- ly, knows way better than the provincial government — wanted to buy a piece of property they said could work very well with BCIT and the development park, the busi- ness research park, behind it…. When there was a piece of property that my city wanted to buy , instead, it was sold off in an asset fi re sale by this government — $45 million less than the appraised value in one case. We are now considering a piece of legislation where the government is going to put its hands, gets its hooks into school board property. Th at has to make all of us very concerned.

It is completely wrong. What it’s going to do to school boards is make it very diffi cult. It’s going to undermine the ability of school boards to do anything. School boards have been very eff ective in trying to use their property, saying: “We want to hold on to this property. We may need a school later. We want to trade this property. We want to build a board offi ce here. ” All sorts of creative things, working with city councils. In our community, city council and school board have worked very cooperatively in creating playing fi elds. Th e city put great tracks onto a couple of the school board properties.

Trading of property. Park property. Well, this piece of legislation is going to end that. Why would any city government want to invest or work with a school board if they know that the provincial govern- ment is just going to get its meathooks into that property, too, and likely sell it off , like it has all of our assets? Sell off the land bank — it is unbelievable that that could be happening. Because I know I have a limited amount of time, I want to talk a little bit about some of the concerns that have been expressed to me and one that has not….

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7751 Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat. Th e member for Comox Valley. D. McRae: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. [1415] Introductions by Members D. McRae: Today, joining us in the gallery, I have some constituents from the Comox Valley and their family. Would the Legislature please make welcome Allan and Brenda Good, who are joined by their daughter, Allana Lemke, their son-in-law, Randy Lemke, and grandchil- dren Jakob, Elias, Natalia, Noël and Micah. Would the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued K.

Corrigan: I’ll talk fi rst about Burnaby school board. Some of the comments from the chair of the board, Ron Burton, were mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway. I talked to this school board chair in Burnaby, and essentially, his comments today were that Bill 11 is undemocratic and destructive to education and concern about the fact that control of professional development has been, basically, handed to the provin- cial government again. “Disrespectful” — the byword of this piece of legisla- tion.

Like so many pieces of legislation before this, there is a lack of respect for teachers demonstrated over and over again. I don’t know how it is that teachers keep go- ing back to the table to discuss issues or to bargain with this government when there is so little faith, when this government acts in bad faith repeatedly when it comes to both teachers and, increasingly, towards B.C. School Trustees Association and individual boards. Mr. Burton says this is an attempt to control teachers. Joint planning can respond to local needs, but there seems to be no re- spect for that.

I want to talk about the Prince George school board. Last week I was in Prince George and was very lucky to have had an opportunity to meet with many stakeholders, administrators, teachers, instructors and students from both the University of Northern British Columbia and the College of New Caledonia. I also met with the Prince George school board, and I was very, very impressed by that group of school trustees. Th ey’re a wonderful, articu- late group of people who are very knowledgable about their district and understand the local needs.

School boards do understand the local needs of their districts and of their students. Every district is unique. School district 57 that serves Prince George and many other communities is certainly very well represented by its trustees. Th ey talked to me about their concerns about Bill 11 and the fact that the provincial government is simply not listening. Th ey said that they support the annual general meeting motions that are passed, and I’m going to men- tion those specifi cally.

One of them was passed at the AGM of the BCSTA: “Th at BCSTA demand the government of B.C. immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected boards of education, specifi cally where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the minister’s authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special adviser provision and where shared service providers are designated by the Minister of Education. ” I just want to mention that shared service provider. This is an idea that’s been around with the provincial government for many years now.

We dealt with it back when I was a school trustee in 2003-2004, when the head of Partnerships B.C. said at a convention in Toronto that dealt with P3s that they were just waiting to get their heads above the water on some other areas before they started to impose P3s on school boards in British Columbia. Th at has not happened yet, but that was the intention at that time. It was back in 2003 and 2004 when those comments were made.

I remember then that the BCSTA stood up and passed resolutions — I think unanimously; if not unanimously, very close to that — that they were very concerned and opposed to the idea of imposing P3s. P3s were all about shared services and about the impos- ition of contracts where local control would be lost in large P3 contracts. I think boards are particularly concerned about things like janitorial services. All the folks who work in schools — the support staff , the teachers, the administrators….

Th ey are concerned and working toward the best inter- ests of the children. [1420] To have service providers coming into schools was a real concern — low-paid service providers who might be changing because they’re minimum wage. We’ve seen what has happened in care homes — the fl ipping of con- tracts, diff erent providers coming in, diff erent care work- ers coming in. It’s not good for the patients, and it would not be good for schools to have service providers with people coming into schools. Th is may not be what the intention is.

But it was cer- tainly a concern over a decade ago, and it would be a con- cern now. We do know what the Liberals are very good at doing: selling off contracts to their friends and not neces- sarily in the best interests of this province — oft en not in the best interests of this province. Th at was the fi rst motion.

Th e second motion: “Th at BCSTA demand an immediate review of the intent of Bill 11 legislation and an opportunity to recommend amend- ments prior to fi nal adoption, as well as the formation of a management partners working group to participate in the development of any subsequent process or resulting regulations. ”

British Columbia Debates7752 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 Th ere has been no more willing group in this province than the BCSTA to work cooperatively with this provin- cial government, despite the high-handed and disdain- ful attitude that this government has repeatedly shown to school trustees, as well as teachers. School trustees have continued to try to work, but these resolutions cer- tainly demonstrate that they’ve just about had it with this provincial government, with their high-handed ap- proach and lack of cooperation, which is not good for public education.

Th is was the fi rst part of this letter from the Prince George school board, saying that they support those mo- tions. Th is was a letter they sent me immediately aft er I met with them last week.

Here’s what they said: “We are deeply concerned with the elements in the bill that in- crease the authority of the Ministry of Education in local decisions and district directions and which challenge the local autonomy and authority of locally elected boards of education. ” Th is is what I was told by the Prince George school board over and over again, certainly concerns echoed by the Delta school district, echoed by other school districts, from the board chair of Nanaimo over and over again and, of course, the umbrella organizations — that there is a wresting away of autonomy and that there is a loss of democracy through Bill 11.

Th e Prince George school board was very concerned about the appointment of special advisers or a special advisory committee, signifi cantly expanding the min- ister’s authority to appoint a special adviser. Th is fur- ther suggests an erosion of local autonomy and local decision-making. And they’re very concerned about the shared-service provisions, very concerned about having designated service providers and very concerned about the management of schools and property. Th is letter that came from the board represented the whole of the board of Prince George. Just at the end of this short letter….

It was very quickly written, but it was well done. “ As was shared during our meeting with Kathy, Bill 11 has sig- nifi cant implications for public education and the importance of local autonomy and local decisions that are in the best interests of local communities and all children. Public education is a demo- cratic right to a free, quality public education. In fact, the point was made that public education is the heart of an inclusive democracy society and any erosion of public education is an erosion of the inclusive rights of its citizens.

Th e provisions in Bill 11, which I have outlined, if enacted in legislation, regulation or order, have the potential of eroding these rights. ” Th e letter, by the way, was written by trustee Sharel Warrington. It was sent to me by Tony Cable, the chair of school district 57. In that covering e-mail he said: “Please be assured that trustee Sharel Warrington has written the attached comments that refl ect how the board of school district 57 feels about Bill 11. ” As I said, there are many, many school districts and many, many concerns.

I want to also just mention that there are concerns, as well, about the access to student information and what the potential is for that. Whether or not there is a potential…. [1425] Student information has been protected in the past. Th is bill provides for the ability of sharing student infor- mation. Th at is always a concern. Th ere is always the con- cern of data being inappropriately used, data being used for wrong purposes and data being inadvertently shared or released. Th at has happened with this government in the past, so that is a concern.

I also want to, again, comment on the fact that the government did not consult with the B.C. Teachers Federation on changes to professional development. Th ey say they’re going to collaborate, but if they wanted to col- laborate, that could have happened anyway. Th is is essen- tially taking control of professional development, which is, again, indicative of a relationship that is not respect- ful, does not indicate respect between the parties and respecting the fact that teachers are professionals. I have such a great deal of respect for the people that teach in my district and many other districts.

I was actually kind of chuckling when I saw that one other part of this bill is that they are going to get rid of school planning councils. I remember when school plan- ning councils were brought in. Th ey were brought in when I was a school trustee, not too far into the time that I became a school trustee. School boards asked, teachers asked and administrators asked: what is this all about? At the time I think the idea was that…. Emery Dosdall was the deputy minister of Education, and it was some- thing that he had been a champion of and was a cham- pion of in Alberta.

The idea was to pass control and responsibility down to local schools for funds for run- ning the schools. Th is was supposed to be part of that. It never worked. It was a lamebrained idea. It was done, yet again, without any kind of consultation. Th ey were asking parents…. Parents were already over- whelmed with trying to be on advisory councils, trying to volunteer in the schools, trying to do the many, many things that parents do in schools. Th is added a respon- sibility for the budget, essentially — in many cases, the budget — and the school plans.

It didn’t work, because parents simply didn’t have enough time. Th ey’re being required to spend more and more time fundraising. All it did was impose another lay- er of bureaucracy and time-consuming responsibility es- sentially on the administrators of the schools. So another idea from the provincial government that did not work. I see my time is coming to a close. I am certainly op- posed, as my colleagues are, to Bill 11. It is a bill that wrests authority away from school boards inappropriate- ly. It does not respect school boards. It does not respect teachers. It is non-democratic.

It is done simply because this government refuses to work with the partners appropriately, as it should. And because it doesn’t like the way school boards and teach-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7753 ers behave, it’s going to shut them up, essentially, or take control away from them. It is not good. Given the his- tory of the government in this province dealing with the education system, it is the wrong move. M. Mungall: I rise today to take my place in the de- bate on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act.

I want to commend my colleague who just took her place in this debate for taking her full 30 minutes in highlighting the various ways in which this bill is a real detriment to the future of British Columbia’s public edu- cation system, how it’s going to pose problems into the future and how it completely and utterly disrespects the partners in the public education system of this province. [1430] At its core what this bill does is centralize provincial government control over B.C. education.

It removes con- trol out of the hands of duly elected school boards, out of the hands of the teachers who are in the classrooms every day with the children of this province. It takes their responsibilities, their ability to do their jobs to the full- est extent of the parameters in which they are supposed to be working, away from them and puts it in the hands of the minister. Th e Minister of Education, regardless of which party is in government, is appointed to that position. Y es, they are elected just as every member of this House is — as we are elected to represent our constituents.

But the minis- ter of the day does not have that direct daily relationship that teachers have with their students, that parent advis- ory councils have with their children and have with the teachers and that school trustees have with their com- munities. Th at is a worry. Th at is a worry for I think every person who believes in public education. We need to ensure that the democratic principles are in place to guide our public education system. But those are being removed. Th ey are being eroded by this bill.

So you won’t be surprised that over the next few minutes that I give my contributions to this debate, you’ll conclude that I, too, am opposed to Bill 11. It’s bad legislation. As I said, it centralizes government control over edu- cation. Th is is how it does it. First, the government is unilaterally giving authority to the minister to impose shared services and projects to, in their words, “improve student performance. ” My guess is this has less to do with student performance and more to do with their budget- ary concerns.

Nothing shows that more than the fact that there’s a budget cut in the 2016 budget to the Ministry of Education, saying to school districts: “Th rough shared services, you’ll be able to spend $29 million less this year, $25 million less next year. ” Y ou’ d think that any member of the public would probably think: “Well, if we’re go- ing to reduce administrative costs through these shared services, as imposed by the minister and defi ned by the minister, then those remaining dollars are going to go back into the classroom. ” I’m sad to let British Columbians know that that’s not the Liberals’ plan.

Th e Liberals’ plan is to take that money directly out of public education. Th at’s not okay. Kids in this province, their families, their communities, deserve better. Along with forcing shared services onto school dis- tricts, thinking that it knows better than school districts what kinds of services they are able to share, this bill loosens the restrictions on sharing student personal in- formation. We’re dealing with privacy issues, and in the modern era of the Internet, privacy is critical. We need to be looking at privacy laws seriously, not haphazardly.

Unfortunately, this bill is a haphazard approach to our children’s privacy. Th e other thing that this bill does is give the minister authority over custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. Now, that might sound okay. It might say: “Okay. Th e government is putting some eff ort into look- ing at how school properties are maintained. ” “ Are they safe?” and “ Are we going to fi nally, properly address the seismic upgrading?” might be some of the questions that British Columbians have on this bill.

Again, I’m sad to say that most people, most trustees who are doing their good job every day of governing lo- cal school districts, believe that this is about selling off property. [1435] We all know how this government’s track record on selling off public lands to pad their budgets has gone — $43 million lost, when this government decided to sell lands in the Tri-Cities area at a $43 million loss. Th eir own government appraised it at $128 million, and they sold it for $85 million.

If that’s the type of approach this government has to public lands, everybody should be worried about how this government is going to take con- trol and, therefore, manage our children’s school lands. Th e other thing that really distresses me about this bill is that much of the details for all of these topics are going to be left to regulation. No consultation is required for any type of regulation. No public oversight is required for any regulation. Just so that the people at home understand, regulation is made by what’s called an order-in-council.

It’s made by cabinet at a cabinet meeting, and those are not subject to public recording in the same way as what transpires in this House and what happens through legislation. Th e re- sult is that at a time when government should be open and transparent about such issues, it isn’t. It’s just plain isn’t. Th is is most distressing with the other thing that this bill does — and that is, defi nes and requires certain pro- fessional development for teachers. Without teachers, this bill…. Th e government says: “Don’t worry. We’ll consult you later. ” I’ve heard that so many times, I know not to believe it.

British Columbia Debates7754 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 What this bill does is it starts to defi ne and require pro- fessional development of teachers but doesn’t give teach- ers the same control over professional development that other professions have. Let’s look at each one of these things that the bill does, distinctly. Like I said, around shared services this government now has the ability to override the authority of school districts on shared services.

It can go up to school dis- trict 8 and school district 43 and say: “Y ou two, you have to work together on paper purchasing. ” Now, most school districts are already looking at ways that they could share services to reduce overall cost to the taxpayer and ensure that more of those funds are going into the classroom. Th ose funds are desperately needed in the classroom, as we all know. We know that we’re lack- ing resources in the classroom.

We know that we have too many children with special needs who are not getting the supports they need so they can reach their full potential, that teachers are overstretched with oversized classrooms. We know all of this to be true, and this government has consistently been dragging its feet to address that — in fact, fi ghting its right in court to ignore the issue. Taking time to go to court to ignore the needs of children is ab- horrent. It is absolutely abhorrent, but that’s what this government does.

Now, rather than acknowledge the work that school districts have been doing to share ser- vices, to fi nd savings so we can put money back in the classroom, the minister is saying: “I know what’s best. ” Very paternalistic here. Th e minister insists that they know what’s best. Th is fl ies in the face of the agreement that this government has with school districts — the agreement for co-governance, an agreement based on respect, an agreement that is sup- posed to see the provincial government and our elected offi cials around school district tables working together. Th at is being severed by this bill.

As I said, they want to force school districts to work together. Th ere are a lot of things to consider. For example, when you’re forcing school districts to work together, a smaller school district might be subsumed or become sub- ordinate to a larger school district. Th ere’s a lot to consider. [1440] Is the minister going to consider that? Can we trust this minister to consider that? I don’t think so. If you want to have an example of where the Liberals have absolutely failed on trying to impose a shared service onto school districts, you need to look no further than BCeSIS.

Th is was a computer system meant for school districts across the province to be able to use to main- tain their students’ data — marks, how they behaved in class, how they were performing in class, if they were they improving, if something was going on that caused them to meet a challenge unsuccessfully, so on and so forth. In 2010, not too long ago, just fi ve years ago, BCeSIS drew considerable media attention for its slowness and its diffi culty in fi lling out forms, its shutouts.

Teachers were just being hampered to do the job that they’re supposed to do — which is to look aft er the education of our chil- dren — because of this computer system. Eighty million dollars was spent, and fi nally, a year later, aft er all of the problems came to light in 2010, the Ministry of Education had to admit that it had just wast- ed $80 million of taxpayers’ money on a failed computer system that they were trying to get every school district to use under a shared-services approach. Th e Ministry of Education in 2011 scrapped BCeSIS because it was such a colossal failure.

Th at’s the last time they tried to force a shared service onto school districts. I’ d hate to see what the future looks like if this bill goes forward. Another point here is that the savings, as I mentioned, are not going to be going back into the classroom. Th e savings that would be happening for many of these shared services have already been budgeted for, apparent- ly, in the budget, with a cut to the Ministry of Education, and they’re not going back into the classroom. Th at money should be staying with the Ministry of Education.

Th at money should be going directly back into the classroom, where this province needs it most. Th is province doesn’t need this government giving end- less amounts of dollars, it seems, every single year to Jumbo, which is a fake town that serves absolutely no one. Th is government has wasted incredible amounts of money, whether it’s cost overruns from the northwest transmission line or B.C. Place.

Th is public doesn’t need this government wasting money on the integrated case management system — $182 million wasted, and more to come on this computer system, I might add — or $72 million wasted on a wasted health computer system. Th at’s not what people need. Th ey need money go- ing into the classrooms. Th at’s what the future of our province needs. But instead of putting any savings from shared services into that, it’s going into the void of gen- eral revenue, maybe ultimately, to be funnelled over to Jumbo, that fake town of no one. Th at is atrocious.

Th at is atrocious that we are not see- ing that money returned to the classroom for things like teachers assistants or educational assistants, increasing the number of teachers so we don’t have oversized class- rooms. Th ere’s an idea. Or how about something as sim- ple as updating our textbooks? I remember I was going through Facebook not too long ago, going through my news feed, and an upset mom posted a photo of her child’s history and geography text- book. Th e Soviet Union was there, and that was the most contemporary textbook that that class had for geography. Th e Soviet Union.

I’ll just remind some of the members of this House that the Soviet Union fell in 1991. I was 12, so it was a while ago. [1445] Th e other thing that is very concerning in all of this is the professional development side of things for teach-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7755 ers. Now, teachers regularly do professional development, updating their knowledge, updating their best practices for being at the front of the classroom, for helping B.C. ’s children. Th ey regularly do this. It’s what makes them good teachers, and they know that. Just like every other profession, they are doing profes- sional development. Doctors do professional develop- ment. Nurses do professional development.

Almost every other profession that does professional development to upgrade, increase and stay contemporary with modern technologies and modern practices — they self-regulate, and they defi ne what needs to be done. Th is government is generally…. Th ey’ve been okay with that. In fact, they’re quite fi ne with it. Y ou don’t see them trying to mandate professional development stan- dards on doctors, but you see them doing this on teach- ers. Why is that? It’s because this government has a very particular dis- dain for the teachers of this province, and there is ample evidence to show that.

We need to only look at the fact that every single contract that this government has signed with teachers has been preceded by some kind of labour dispute simply because this government refused to go to the table in good faith and bargain in good faith, bargain respectfully. Th is has happened time and time again, and we should be concerned when this government thinks that it knows better than teachers and school districts and parent ad- visory councils what’s needed in the classroom. Th at is awful, and I don’t think, at the end of the day, that this is going to be serving our students well.

Th e other point that concerns me, as I mentioned, is student privacy. Just to provide some detail, these pro- posed amendments, as I mentioned, erode student pri- vacy. Specifi cally,

section 170 of the School Act, entitled “Non-disclosure of student records, ” is going to be deleted by Bill 11, and it’s going to be replaced with a new

section titled “Student personal information. ” Th at might just seem like a change in semantics, but it’s not. Th e current

section 170 has strict controls over the ability of ministry employees to disclose student per- sonal information. Th ese new amendments are more per- missive in nature. Th ere are so many questions around these new amend- ments, questions that people in British Columbia have. How is this data going to be maintained? Who all is going to have access to it? Will this be shared from one ministry to another? If so, why? Th ere are multiple questions that need to be answered to ensure that people’s — that chil- dren’s — privacy is maintained. I’m particularly curious if this

section of the act is even in line with our Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. No doubt, the Offi ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will have something to say, ultimate- ly, about how this change, this amendment, is going to take place. Hon. S. Anton: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Anton: I’ d like to introduce the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary school in my riding. Th ey’re all up there looking over at us, and I must say they know the B.C. Legislature extremely well.

Th ey an- swered all my questions, and they knew better than a lot of kids older than them that usually get the answers. So congratulations to their teachers and parents supporting them — Mrs. Duffi n, Mr. Dayo, Ms. Singh, Mrs. Tai, Miss Martin, Mr. Pena, Mr. Perrotta and all of the grade 5 class from Corpus Christi elementary in lovely Vancouver- Fraserview. Debate Continued Deputy Speaker: Th e member for Nelson-Creston will continue. [1450] M. Mungall: Well, I have to say that it’s wonderful that we have a group of school kids here right now.

Oft en when school kids come, we could be debating anything from amendments to the Seafood Act or fi sheries. But to- day we’re actually debating something that is happening that’s important to their day-to-day lives, being students in the public school system. So I imagine that’s a bit more of an extra treat than just being here at the Legislature and meeting your MLA, which is a treat in and of itself. As I was saying about the privacy issues with Bill 11, we have just too many questions that are going unanswered, that are going to be left to regulation.

As I mentioned, regulation is done by the stroke of a pen in a cabinet room. It does not have the public scrutiny that it would if it was in legislation — scrutiny that I think the public, whose lives are going to be impacted by these changes to privacy, ought to have some input into. Indeed, looking to the future and looking to today’s children, I think they deserve better than to just have to trust that the Liberals won’t make the same mistakes they did with BCeSIS with their privacy and how that will play out in their future.

Now, you’ d think that with any types of signifi cant changes that would have an impact on school district budgets, that would impact the professional development of teachers and that would impact the privacy rights of students, there would have been some type of consulta- tion with the stakeholders that are going to be directly impacted by this bill prior to the legislation hitting the fl oor. I am disappointed that that has not been the case. It should have been. Everybody in this province deserves better than being

British Columbia Debates7756 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 ignored by this government. Had they done some consul- tation, I probably would have received very diff erent let- ters than what I did receive from school districts around the province but, most notably, my own school district 8, Kootenay Lake school district. I want to share with members opposite exactly what people in the Kootenays are saying about this legislation. I think it’s important that we hear directly what they have to say. Th e Kootenay Lake district parent advisory coun- cil shares this.

Th ey say: “Th is legislation severely inhib- its the participation of parents, trustees and teachers in the delivery of public education and increases the power of those farthest away from the students. ” No doubt about it. In the Kootenays we oft en feel like we’re very far away from Victoria. It’s a 13-hour drive on a good day, in the summer. We’ll ignore the blizzards in the winter and how long that can take things. We’re far away. We don’t have the opportunity to come and meet with the minister, give him direct feedback on how this bill is impacting kids’ lives.

We can do that with our school district but not anymore, aft er Bill 11. Th e Kootenay Lake DPAC goes on to say: “Consultation aft er the fact does not equate with involvement during the process. ” I think that says it all right there. Th ey just simply weren’t consulted. To say, “Trust us, and we’ll do it later, ” isn’t good enough. Parents are also concerned about the changes to the permitted uses of student information. Th e legislation, as presented, is very vague in this regard and raises con- cerns about the privacy of sensitive information about our children.

Th ey go on: “Th e authority of our locally elected repre- sentatives is being severely eroded. Boards of education are being forced to comply with mandates emanating from the offi ce of the minister or face the threat of re- placement by a non-elected, non–locally accountable political appointee. ” For the parents of school district 8 in my riding of Nelson-Creston this bill is not okay, and they don’t want to see it go through. [1455] I also have a letter that I received recently from the chair of school district 8.

She writes that school district 8 calls upon the provincial government for the “immediate withdrawal” of Bill 11. Th ey go on to say: “Th ose at the grassroots, including our parents, educators, staff and lo- cal board of education are not being consulted. ” Like I said, you’ d think that any signifi cant change to the School Act would require some type of consultation if you are actually in a co-governance model with school dis- tricts. Co-governance to most people means that there’s a partnership, a collaboration, that they’re working in tan- dem together — lock, stock and barrel.

Th at’s not what happened here. Again, the government writes something nice on paper and then just does whatever it wants later. School district 8 is calling on the government to insti- tute a broad-based consultation process and put this bill on hold or withdraw it altogether and start from scratch. Th ey have some questions too: “Is the shared-services plan going to be an impediment to independently and appropriately managing priorities in local districts? Does the provincial government intend to take over control of the land assets owned by the school districts?” We don’t know that.

We don’t have the answer to that. Th at’s going to come in regulation. Th e school board goes on to say: “We are left suspicious of the government’s motives and deeply concerned about the future of boards of education across the province. ” Th ey warn the government: “Th ere will be no buy-in to the provincial government plans for educational restruc- turing unless the stakeholders can be made participants of the change rather than having change simply foisted upon them. ” Those are wise words coming from the Kootenays.

Th is government should consider them, consider with- drawing Bill 11, go back to the drawing board and work under a co-governance model, as they had promised. School districts work with them to make any types of changes going into the future. I also think it’s important to share with the House some words coming from Delta school district. I know that the member for Delta South will likely be speaking to this, but I have been sad to see that so far, well into the debate, the Liberals have discontinued putting up speak- ers and that the member for Delta North will not be able to share these comments.

Delta writes: “We have been democratically elected to safeguard the resources of our district on behalf of our constituents. We must, therefore, speak against any legislation that would alter this mandate by placing an unelected special adviser, who is not accountable to our community, in front of our trustees’ ability to serve our community. ” Delta school district, Kootenay Lake school district — they are just two of many school districts across the prov- ince who are speaking out against Bill 11.

Th ey are part of a growing group of people, a growing movement of school districts, of teachers, of parent advisory councils who are saying this bill is not good for public education, this bill is not good for our students’ future, and this bill is not good for our province. British Columbians deserve better. Th ey deserve a government who will work with them, who will listen to them, who will collaborate with them and not ignore them when it is suddenly inconvenient for their budget- ary concerns. We need better governance. We need better legislation. British Columbians deserve that. A.

Weaver: To begin, I’ d like to emphasize that I’ve al- ways believed that teaching is the single most important profession in our society. Each and every one of us has attended school, and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do, and how we contribute to society. So

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7757 it follows that public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province. [1500] Public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society and become the lead- ers of tomorrow. Teaching is a thoroughly rewarding yet physically and emotionally exhausting profession. It takes a very special person to be able to instruct a class of 20 to 30 young children for fi ve hours every day.

Last year I spent a day engaging every grade from kinder- garten to grade six at Savory Elementary’s 4Seasons Eco School, 4EST, program. I only had one lesson plan to deliver to the seven sep- arate classes, from 8:45 to 2:30 on that day. I had no marking to take home, no report cards to write, no par- ents to interact with, no staff meetings and no adminis- trative activities. Nor did I have to take the students on extracurricular activities. But let me tell you that I was exhausted at the end of the day. And I only did that once, not day in, day out, for months on end.

Let me start my speech by noting that we have out- standing teachers and an exceptional education sys- tem in the province of British Columbia. Every three years the program for international student assessment, known as PISA, evaluates the performance of students internationally in three subject areas: mathematics, sci- ence and reading. Th e Council of Ministers of Education, Canada fur- ther breaks down the Canadian results on a province-by- province basis. British Columbia consistently performs extremely well.

In 2012, for example, British Columbia was the top Canadian province in reading and science and was second only to Quebec in mathematics. In fact, British Columbia students even performed bet- ter than students from the much-touted education sys- tem in Finland in both reading and mathematics. And while Finland scored slightly ahead of B.C. in science, the diff erence was statistically insignifi cant. Of course, we’ll have to wait until December 2016 to get the PISA 2015 results to see how British Columbia continues to fare.

Now, I recognize that the PISA results only provide one metric of student achievement and, hence, the suc- cess of the British Columbia school system. Nevertheless, it’s a very positive one. It says to me that we must be do- ing something right in British Columbia despite what we might read about in the news. It also suggests to me that maybe we should start to celebrate our successes and dwell less on the negative arising from a dysfunctional relationship between the B.C. government and the BCTF .

At the end of the strike last fall the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means fi ve years of labour peace ahead of us. ” Rather than viewing this as fi ve years of simmering anger waiting to boil over when the negotiations next begin, we should be capital- izing on this time to envision bold new ways of ensuring our educational system is sustainable. Th is includes teachers being fairly compensated and adequately supported with properly funded curriculum and learning resources.

Such support must include sin- cere and meaningful class size and composition discus- sions and support that recognizes that teacher burnout aff ects us all. It must include reinvigorating our educa- tional infrastructure and ensuring that children have textbooks and access to learning materials. [D. Horne in the chair.] On Th ursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its decision concerning the rights of teachers to negotiate conditions around class size and composition.

Rather than allowing this to serve as a catalyst to incite increased tension between the BCTF and the government, per- haps both parties will recognize the opportunities that will arise from mutual collaboration, no matter what the Court of Appeal’s decision is. For example, perhaps there is a compromise on class size and composition negotiations. Why don’t the BCTF and the B.C. government both agree, for example, that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level?

In fact, as noted in the book Worlds Apar t: British Columbia Schools, Politics and Labour Relations, Before and Aft er 1972 by Th omas Fleming, the BCTF was not pleased with the 1994 Public Education Labour Relations Act which led to the formation of BCPSEA and to the BCTF being appointed as the offi cial bargainer for all teachers. [1505] Provincial data clearly show that one size does not fi t all. Th e class size and composition needs of Haida Gwaii’s school district No. 50 are almost certainly dif- ferent from those in the Gulf Islands, No. 64, or Surrey, school district 36.

Perhaps both parties would consider waiving the right to strike in favour of binding arbitration with respect to salary and benefi t negotiations. In 1950 Manitoba teach- ers did just this. In return, they gained binding arbitra- tion, due process and a provincial certifi cation board. Th ere has been labour peace in Manitoba ever since. Binding arbitration forces each party to come up with their best off er. Th e arbitrator then chooses from one of them or some combination of both. One thing is certain: outlandish requests are taken off the table quickly when binding arbitration is in play.

While the B.C. government and the BCTF play out their decades-long dance of dysfunction as they battle it out, entrenched in what I perceive to be ideological pos- itions, the ones who are paying the price are the children in the classroom, the teachers who teach them, and the parents at home.

British Columbia Debates7758 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 But moving this relationship forward requires trust, mutual trust. It’s easy for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education are leery to trust the direction this government is taking in Bill 11. Th is bill is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in mean- ingful dialogue, the government is providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives.

Nobody knows what the minister has in mind or what cabinet will do with these powers, should this law receive royal assent. Bill 11 repeals the concept of school planning councils. Frankly, I support moving back to focusing the parents’ role in the parent advisory councils. Th e B.C. Liberals school planning council model was a failed approach to school-based governance, introduced when our current Premier was the Minister of Education.

I doubt that there will be much public outcry over this, although it would have been preferable to give the public more opportunity for input prior to actually putting this legislation forward. Aft er all, this is public education that we are discussing here today. Bill 11 takes the very provocative and, honestly, I think ill-thought-out position of empowering the minister to set teachers’ professional development requirements. Like any profession, teachers require ongoing profes- sional development. Th at goes without saying. But like these same professions, professional development must be led by the experts.

In this case it’s by the teachers, not by ministerial decree. Now, I recognize that the minister will say and respond that he wants to negotiate with the BCTF as to what this professional development might look like. However, my reply to the minister on this is that he has lost trust. He’s lost the trust of the teachers, as what the minister had in mind should have been conveyed prior to, rather than aft er, this legislation being tabled. Besides, what body would oversee the professional development? Th e B.C. College of Teachers would have been the natural place, but it’s been disbanded.

Th e BCTF is a union tasked with representing its members in ne- gotiations, not in maintaining professional standards. So they are not the appropriate home for such professional ongoing professional development. Th e teacher regulation branch doesn’t seem the right place either. So what does the minister have in mind? We simply don’t know, and therein lies the problem. Why are we bringing forward legislation to discuss this when we do not know what the minister has in mind and when trust has been broken and lost with negotiations on this topic with the teachers before we’ve even started to discuss it?

It’s clear to me that this bill was not ready for debate in the Legislature. In my view, it should have followed the lead of the Society Act or the Water Sustainability Act and allowed extensive public consultation prior to its introduction, rather than aft erwards. [1510] Both of those pieces of legislation obtained a social li- cence, public support. In the case of the Society Act, pub- lic input led to a better act, with the removal of

section 99. But here we do not have public support. We’ve just come off a prolonged strike, and on Th ursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its long-awaited decision. What an incredible opportunity this could be for British Columbians to be offered to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might im- prove our education system. Instead of discussing this ill-thought-out legislation whose direction is not actually brought forward with any substance today for us to speak to, we could have had a discussion about education. For example, we could have had a discussion about education funding.

Th e level of funding allocated to our public education system depends on the priorities of the government. In British Columbia spending on health care has remained a priority since 2000, ranging between 7 percent and 8 percent of provincial GDP . Funding for social services and education expressed as a percentage of GDP , on the other hand, has dropped over this period of time. In the case of education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP , it has declined from a high of about 6.4 percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took offi ce fi rst, to an estimated low of about 5 percent in 2014-2015.

Now, that’s a 22 percent decline in the percentage of funding, as a percentage of GDP , being spent on education in our province. If British Columbians deem education to be as import- ant as I do, surely this drop needs to be rectifi ed. So the question is: where does this money come from? I would argue that British Columbians need to have a hard look at our sources of provincial revenue and the way we spend the money that government receives. Given a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts, perhaps it’s time to take a look at whether or not we’ve gone too far.

Th at’s an important discussion to have, as it ultimately aff ects the availability of funds for our public education system. Th at’s a discussion we could have had prior to the introduction of Bill 11. With increases in public school enrolment looming, it’s critical that we initiate this discus- sion now, not later, not tomorrow, not aft er the next settle- ment is in negotiation with the teachers in our province. We could have had a discussion about the ongoing role of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. Th e BCPSEA was established in 1994.

Since that time there has been a continued escalation of confl ict between the BCTF and the government via BCPSEA. Perhaps it’s time to consider dismantling BCPSEA and, instead, bringing its operations directly into the Ministry of Education. This would signal that govern ment is willing to start afresh to try and build a new relationship with teachers. Aft er all, it’s the government, not BCPSEA, that holds the purse strings.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7759 We could have engaged in a discussion about the role of school boards in our public education system.

Th omas Fleming, in his aforementioned book, noted: “ A history of extremely low voter turnout in school board elec- tions, along with the infl uence of teacher associations over elector- al candidates, has raised serious questions about whether boards in fact actually refl ect the public’s educational will or simply serve as a platform for the expression of various special interests — all insistent on greater school spending, regardless of other legitimate public demands government is obligated to consider. ” Th at quote comes from page 109.

He further points out that only between 5 percent and 10 percent of eligible voters turn up at a school board election not occurring at the same time as municipal elections. In addition, he detailed a by-election in the capital regional district that brought out around only 2 percent of the electorate. Th e mandate of school boards has changed over the last century. In the early 20th century local school boards were tasked with hiring the teacher for their oft en one- room schoolhouse in rural areas, for example, and en- suring that the school was kept up.

Provincial inspectors toured the province to make sure that centrally deter- mined educational standards were maintained. [1515] In an extremely infl uential report authored by Max Cameron in 1946, sweeping changes were proposed to the previously existing model of public school govern- ance. Increased fi nancial effi ciency and equitable edu- cational opportunities for all rural and urban British Columbian students required a new approach. In 1944 there were 650 school districts governed by 437 school boards. Just three years later only 89 school districts re- mained, and by 1971 this was down to 74.

Today there are 60 school districts. Is that the right number? Should their mandate be changed? Th ese are questions the pub- lic should have had a chance to discuss and become en- gaged on discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11. We could have engaged in a discussion about wheth- er British Columbians want to follow the New Zealand model, where school boards were eliminated in their en- tirety, or the Finnish model, where school districts are aligned more closely and intimately with local munici- palities for funding, or some other variant.

We could have engaged in a discussion about teacher shortages that will emerge in a few years as projected enrolment increases. All school-aged demographics are expected to rise for at least the next decade. Th is further suggests that while we may have an excess of teachers being trained today, in three or four years, as the teach- er demographic ages and as the number of school-aged children starts to increase, we will almost certainly have teacher shortages, particularly in the areas of French im- mersion, mathematics and science, where demand ex- ceeds supply even presently.

Rather than perpetuate the boom-and-bust cycle of teacher training and hiring and rather than keeping people for many years on the teacher-on-call list, per- haps a more gradual transition to full-time employment could have been developed. Perhaps we could be discuss- ing this as many of the things in our education system that we could and should have been discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11. For example, teacher burnout early on in one’s career is not uncommon.

We all know an example of a teacher or two who taught for a few years and moved on, as if the requirements placed upon them are simply unbear- able, given the support that is lacking at their early age of entry into the teaching profession. A young teacher might be thrown into a new situation, with multiple class preparations for a range of students with a diversity of skills and backgrounds, with no past teaching material practices to draw upon. New teachers can quickly become overwhelmed with workload.

Senior teachers, on the other hand, approaching retire- ment have a wealth of experience, curriculum resources and best practices. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate a buddy system, where a retiring teacher signs an agree- ment to retire gradually over, say, a three-year period, and during that time the starting teacher is paired with the retiring teacher. While the senior teacher gently eases into retirement, the new teacher gently eases into full- time teaching, and the decades of experiences and best practices are passed along from the senior to the junior teacher.

Finally, perhaps we could have started a discussion about innovative ways that would allow school districts to build upon best practices of shared services prior to the introduction of this bill that we are discussing to- day. Perhaps the government could play a role here and provide the province with a centralized payroll system or legal services, for example. Does each district need to have its own payroll department? Should teachers be employed by the Ministry of Education instead of the board? Are there opportunities for economies of scale?

Bill 11 enables the minister to step in, but again, it would have been preferable to open the bill up fi rst for public and stakeholder input prior to tabling it in this House. Now, those ideas that I’ve put forward are not ones that I’m advocating for particularly, or any at all. I’m sim- ply introducing them and putting out these ideas in the hope that they provoke discussion, a discussion about how public education should evolve in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, the approach to educational policy change in the province of British Columbia is viewed by many — by parents, by teachers, by others — in the province as heavy-handed and top down. Building a social licence for change requires uncom- fortable topics to be discussed and new ideas also to be discussed. Sadly, rather than introducing this legislation aft er such discussions were conducted and concluded, the legislation was brought forward prematurely, and

British Columbia Debates7760 Tuesday, April 28, 2015 in doing so government sends the wrong message to teachers. [1520] It sends a message that suggests a heavy-handed, top- down, rather than collaborative, approach to educational reform is the direction that this government is heading. But please let me reiterate. Th e status quo between the government and the BCTF cannot continue. Th e politi- cization of our public education system serves no con- structive purpose. We have outstanding and dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia.

We have a very educated workforce, and we can use it to attract business to our province, as we off er something no one else in the world has — bountiful natural resources and the most beautiful place on earth as our backyard. Now, the politicization of our public education system is not just the fault of the government. When the BCTF invites the leader of the B.C. NDP to address the 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ends with him calling on everyone to defeat the B.C. Liberals, which he referred to as “those buggers, ” this does nothing to build bridges between teachers and government.

It does nothing to build trust in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide, and everybody loses when that happens. Our children lose, their teach- ers lose, and the parents of those children also lose when public education in the province of British Columbia be- comes partisan. Let’s step back. Let’s let this bill die on the order paper and reintroduce it next year, once a more thorough con- sultation process has occurred. Let’s get it right, so that we can start rebuilding trust between teachers and gov- ernment in British Columbia. Deputy Speaker: I thank the member.

I will remind members of the use of language under standing rule 40. C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 11 and join this side of the House in our opposition to this bill. Once again, we are standing in this House and talk- ing about education and, fundamentally, attacks on the public education system. Th is has been going on for 14 years. For 14 years this side of the House has been try- ing to defend the public education system against the vicissitudes and the cuts that it has seen.

Once again, we are here talking about how important public education is, how important the boards of education are and lo- cal elected offi cials are against a government bill that…. Th e member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head described it as premature, that it should have gone out for consultation. I disagree with him, fundamentally. Th is is a deliberate piece of legislation. Th ere is no question that we have a government that, for whatever reason, undervalues edu- cation, both in a dollar sense — we know that there is far too little money going into the education system — but in a philosophical sense also.

We have a very narrow approach to education, in- creasingly narrow, as we keep talking more and more about how we’re going to fi t our square pegs into round holes or our round pegs into square holes with the jobs plan. We’re going to just train everybody so they are just ready to work at whatever jobs that may come up in the oil and gas sector. Th ere is a huge undervaluing of education by this gov- ernment. We’ve seen, for many years, that the govern- ment has been willing to act illegally, has been willing to act without consideration and has been willing to under- mine the public education system.

As other speakers have mentioned, we have just come out of a very long lockout where the teachers were out of the schools not of their own choice but out of the schools because they were locked out for many months. We have, ostensibly, fi ve years of peace. What would we have at the start of this fi ve years of peace? Th is bill. I’m going to speak primarily on the views of the school districts in my constituency. I have three very distinct school districts in my constituency — school districts 72, 84 and 85.

I’ve talked about them before in this Legislature. [1525] Th e words that the trustees have told me when I’ve had chats with them about this, conversations about this bill and what their thoughts about this bill are…. Th ey’ve been described as a frustration. One chair said: “Th is has been thrown upon us. Why?” Another said: “We thought we were in discussion. We thought we were on the right track. Why is the government doing this?” From the school trustees themselves, there is both…. People are perplexed, and they are fundamentally wor- ried.

Th ey thought that there was agreement from this government to work collaboratively — they keep talking about co-governance. Th ere was a real sense that some- thing might be happening with the government willing to work with school boards. What school boards are now seeing is that this is clearly not the case, that we have an increasing centralization of the system, where power is put into the minister’s hand and we don’t quite know what sort of power it is. Like so much of the legislation we’ve been discussing in this House in the last few months, since this session started, a lot of it is in regulation.

What that means, having it in regulation, is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, makes the decision. Th e bill, however it is passed, leaves a lot of the deci- sions — a lot of the nitty-gritty, the details, the how, what the

interpretations are — up to cabinet. And frankly, I have no trust in this cabinet. I don’t think it’s going to be choosing wisely on behalf of public education. Going back to the school districts. Th ey are very wor- ried about this centralization of control. Th ey feel that the rug has been pulled out from under them, because we had this whole concept of co-governance and that now, as far as they’re concerned, has been thrown out.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, April 28, 2015 7761 What seems to be forgotten in all of this is that the school boards are democratically elected people, like we are. Th ey go to the electorate and talk about the issues that matter, to them and to the electorate, specifi cally public education, and get voted in.

Th ey do not expect, in that, to have a heavy hand coming down from a min- ister who is saying: “Y ou can do this; you cannot do that. ” Of course there are guidelines, of course there are regulations, of course there are requirements that you have to fulfi l as a school trustee, but what they see here is a lot of the authority potentially being pulled away from them. Th at is really, really concerning for them. Th ey are very worried about the loss of autonomy, and they see the language in this bill as, basically, vague and just all-encompassing. Th ere are certain lines here within the bill where we have….

For instance, in the administrative directive sec- tion, which is where a minister may order the board to do something in various areas — whether it is “in the public interest. ” Th ere is no defi nition of what the pub- lic interest is. Or whether it is a “matter specifi ed by the minister, ” without specifying what that matter might be. Th ere is a lot of very vague references in this bill, in Bill 11, that are very, very troubling.

Th ere is also, as I mentioned, this real sense that there is going to be a centralization in what a board can do — the fact that the minister can supersede a board decision, the fact that there is the appearance in this that boards have this shared services. I know that colleagues on this side of the House have used the BCeSIS as the model for shared services and the inappropriate way of that. I’ve got a very simple way of shared services. We have three school districts in my constituency. School district 72 is the largest one.

It’s Campbell River and the outlying communities — Quadra, Cortes, Reid, Sayward — a number of small schools and now two main high schools. A very vibrant school district. Th e needs of school district 72 are very, very diff erent from the needs of school district 84, which is the west coast of Vancouver Island, where there are 400 students in the whole school district. Th at is much smaller than many, many high schools and many elementary schools in this province, I should imagine. So that is the whole school district, and within school district 84, there are four very distinct communities.

Th ere is Gold River, which is the central community where the high school is based. Th ere is Tahsis, where you have, 64 kilometres down a logging road, an elementary school and high school combined, and people graduate from there. Y ou’ve got Zeballos, likewise. Y ou approach Zeballos…. Th ese are all in Nootka Sound. [1530] Zeballos. Y ou go 42 kilometres down a very uncom- fortable logging road — which I’ve raised many times with the Ministry of Forests, to please try and fi x this logging road because we have a lot of school kids going back and forth along it. We have the school in Zeballos.

Again, it is a small school but goes up to high school. And we have Kyuquot, which is…. Y ou go beyond Zeballos on this lousy logging road — Minister of Forests, please hear — out to Fair Harbour. Y ou get on a boat, and you go out to Kyuquot. It is a small First Nations community — the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nation — who have, again, a school there that has very diff erent needs.

Even within a school district, it would be very hard, at times, to do shared services, let alone when you’re talking about the needs of combining three school districts in my constituency or looking at the needs of Vancouver Island West, in school district 84 — to compare them to Surrey. Th e languages are very diff erent. Th e needs are very dif- ferent. Shared services would not necessarily work. Of course, there are going to be some agreements of, you know, purchasing to try and get cheaper supplies — come in and deal with another school di

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150428pm-Hansard-v24n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150428pm Hansard v24n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8a8e94fe3135ce51490f3b173f6d8421d98fbe67

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