2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Creative industries week

J. Thornthwaite

Japanese Canadian internment commemoration at Hastings Park

S. Simpson

Canadian Pacific Railway construction and Chinese workers

R. Lee

Cooperative housing

J. Shin

Wayne March and Sicamous Eagles Hockey Club

G. Kyllo

Proposed national park in South Okanagan area

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Government action on Surrey gun violence and anti-gang program funding

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

Access to cancer treatment and diagnostic services

S. Fraser

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

Freedom-of-information process and access to records

M. Mungall

Hon. A. Virk

D. Eby

S. Robinson

D. Routley

M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Document regarding the B.C. Cancer Agency colon screening program

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

B. Routley

S. Gibson

R. Austin

C. James

J. Darcy

S. Hammell

On the amendment

S. Hammell

M. Farnworth

J. Kwan

S. Simpson

N. Simons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. S. Cadieux

D. Donaldson

J. Rice

M. Karagianis

[ Page 7809 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: In 1906 Sikhs in Vancouver formed the Khalsa Diwan Society and built the first gurdwara in North America. In the 1960s the gurdwara moved to the building at Ross Street and Southeast Marine Drive in the beautiful riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. The gurdwara has recently been renovated and looks absolutely spectacular. It is the home of the Komagata Maru Museum.

[1335]

Notably, it recently hosted two Prime Ministers, the Prime Minister of Canada and Prime Minister Modi of India. That was a thrill for the oldest Sikh society outside of India.

The Khalsa Diwan Society at the Ross Street temple has built community in Vancouver for nearly 110 years with sports tournaments, Punjabi classes, worship and food. May it continue to do so for at least another 110.

We’re joined in the House today by 18 members of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver: Mr. Sohan Deo, the president; Mr. Sukwinder Gill, the treasurer; Ms.Niranjan Mand, recording secretary; Mr. Ranjit Hayer, assistant treasurer — and I might add about Mr. Hayer that the last time he was in the House was 50 years ago, when W.A.C. Bennett was Premier; Ms. Betty Hayer, liaison officer; Mr. Kuldeep Thandi; Mr. Kashmir Dhaliwal; Mr. Ajay Rai; Mr. Sukpal Juti; Mr. Boojah S. Mangat; Ms. Shirley Hayer; Ms. Amardeep Johal; Ms. Balbir Gurm; Ms. Cindy Kadola; Mr. Surinder S. Sidhu; Mr. Jagjeeven S. Gill; Mr. Jinder Hayer and Mr. Avtar Singh.

Will the House please make all of these members of the Khalsa Diwan Society from Vancouver-Fraserview very welcome.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to join with the Attorney in welcoming the Khalsa Diwan Society and their executive.

The names that are mentioned are synonymous with our community. These are the people that our community is known by. They represent an organization that has history in building Canada. In 1906 this organization was established, the oldest outside of India of any Sikh organization.

It was not just that the Sikhs went to the gurdwara to pray and get the spiritual strength. They did that. But along with that, it was a social hub, economic hub, the centre for community get-togethers of all religions to talk about the difficulties that those members of those days were facing, whether it was the struggle to get the right to vote or fighting to keep those passengers from the Komagata Maru here or to have fairer immigration laws in Canada or promoting human rights in Canada.

I think it was with their work, along with the communities they were able to lead, that we are a better country today and that we are a better society today.

I want to say that along with the executive…. And there are other members of the community. There are activists. They are there day in and day out, and we meet with them. They are the ones who give us the advice and strength and guidance to continue to do a good job here — to make that society, our society, a better place.

I just want to ask the House to please join with me and give them a very, very warm welcome. I say thank you so much for making us a better society and a better Canada.

J. Thornthwaite: I have two sets of introductions today, but first of all I’d like to welcome the Scouts of Canada to the Legislature.

I welcome Cassidy Benson, Ryan Buckley, Kiara Caplan, Neala Hutchinson, George Inglis, Braydyn Johnson, Sarah Kallesoe, Ian MacLean, Sebastian Markwick, Cindy Mei, Kenya Mendosa, Benjamin Ng, Ernest Ng, Owen Paetkau, Caitlyn Piton, Linda Rainbow, Bryson Stoughton, Kaitlyn Taylor, Melanie Walker, Ian Wilson and Max Witte, all with their leaders William Schulte, Mark Paetkau, Iqbal Lalany, Maria Orozco and Alamin Pirani.

Thank you very much for joining us, and for the members of the House that joined us for lunch today. I welcome them to the House.

J. Horgan: I want to join with the member from North Vancouver in welcoming the Scout representatives here today, particularly William Schulte from my district of Juan de Fuca, from the great city of Sooke, which will be the host this year for the Pacific Jamboree at Camp Barnard. My colleague here said, “I bet they called it barnyard,” and when I went there 40 years ago, that’s exactly what we called it.

[1340]

It’s going to be an exciting time this summer for scouts right across the Pacific side of this continent. Would the House make them all very, very welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s indeed a pleasure to have someone from my riding here today. John Shandalla is a member of our area and a former karate champion, I understand.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a number of old friends and some new friends from an organization I spent a few years working with, the B.C.

[ Page 7810 ]

Government and Service Employees Union. Joining us in the gallery today to observe question period is executive vice-president Mike Nuyens and — I’ll miss somebody, so I won’t name them all — the members of the BCGEU’s political action committee. They’re a committed group.

Will the members of the House please join me in making them very, very welcome.

V. Huntington: If the House Leaders had decided that only they would introduce the Scouts, given they forgot to mention that to me, I’m going to take advantage of welcoming a longtime young friend of mine to the House, Linda Rainbow. Linda started her scouting career as a Sea Scout, becoming a Sea Venturer and achieving the Queen’s Venturer scout award, became a Rover scout and is now working at the national level in the scouting movement.

Linda will be meeting with me later today, and we’ll be joined by Bryson Stoughton, also of Delta, and Melanie Walker from Langley.

Would the House make them particularly welcome.

D. Horne: It’s a pleasure this afternoon to introduce a group of students visiting from Western Washington University in Bellingham. They’re here today to learn about the Canadian system of government and are in a fourth-year political science course entitled the politics of Canada.

As our next door neighbour, it’s fitting that these students take the day to see firsthand how we operate and how parliamentary democracy works here in British Columbia — perhaps the advantages of controlling both the administrative and the legislative sides of government.

They are accompanied by their professor, Dr. Theodore Kamena, as well as the new director of Canadian-American Studies, Dr. David Rossiter.

Would the House make them truly welcome.

M. Karagianis: Both sides of the House have the great privilege every year of working with a group of interns that help us on either side of the House. We have today the family members of one of our brilliant and amazing young interns.

Kristine Parker’s family is here, so I would like to give them a welcome: Janice Parker, Kristine’s mom, who lives in View Royal; Webster Parker, Kristine’s dad, who lives in Chemainus; Terry Weber, who is Kristine’s stepfather, also in View Royal; Donna Somer, who’s Kristine’s aunt, from View Royal; and Matthew Hall, Kristine’s husband, from Gordon Head.

I’d like you to give them a really good welcome for being here today.

D. Ashton: I, too, want to welcome the folks up from Washington. I had a pleasant meeting this morning with them. Again, in a quick explanation, I said that during question period they’re going to see ladylike and gentlemen-like behaviour in here — not the polarization that they’re used to. So welcome.

I also would like to welcome Byron Burnett and Tyler Willox, from Information Services in Saskatchewan.

R. Chouhan: I would like to welcome a person who runs my office with a smile, taking care of all my constituents every day, day in and day out — Amber Keane — and all her colleagues from the BCGEU, my friends.

Please join me to welcome them all. Thank you very much for coming today.

J. Thornthwaite: Last night and today the Legislature was treated to Creative B.C.’s film, TV, music, books, magazines and digital entertainment. I’d like to introduce some folks in the gallery: Liz Shorten, Allen and Cynde Harmon, Fawn McDonald, Nancy Mott, Gordon Hardwick and Ron and Lynne Hrynuik.

Please allow me to welcome them to the Legislature.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome the Scouts. I just wanted to say that when I met with four of them this morning, they were an incredibly well-spoken group of people and talked about the history of Scouts. It was really good to meet with them.

[1345]

Specifically, I want to introduce Ryan Buckley, who came the furthest. He came from Trail. He got to fly, though, but he came the furthest, all the way from Trail in my constituency.

J. Shin: I have the pleasure of introducing to the house Shari O’Neill and her 11-year-old daughter Cassidy O’Neill, who in the last half a year since I saw her has grown taller than her mom or myself. She’s aspiring to become a singer one day.

Shari is well known in the community as an advocate with much of her efforts focused on youth engagement and education. She serves as the board member for the Amanda Todd Legacy Society and is the member-at-large for school district 43, DPAC and TriCities Soroptimist. And in her spare time she also works on two school parent advisory committees.

Visiting Victoria is apparently an annual mom and daughter date for Shari and Cassidy, and I ask the House to please thank them for their service and make them feel very welcome.

D. Routley: Can the House help me welcome the father of one of our interns. The interns are university students who come and help both sides of the House. One of our interns, Kristine Parker, welcomes along with us her father, Webster Parker, who is a constituent of mine from Chemainus. May the House please help me make him welcome.

[ Page 7811 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

J. Thornthwaite: Our government has proclaimed April 27 to May 4 Creative Industries Week in British Columbia. This proclamation recognizes the many contributions that film, television, music and digital media industries make to the economic, artistic and cultural identity of our province.

The creative sector is one of our biggest employers. The film industry alone counts for more than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs and generates more than $1 billion in spending each year, making B.C. one of the most sought-after destinations for film and television production in North America and a growing hub for animation and digital effects.

Production companies love to set up shop here in B.C. because of our talented crew, world-class studio and sound stages, skilled post-production and animation houses, spectacular landscapes and competitive tax credits. Recently our government adjusted two tax credits to boost our edge on the competition. The distant location tax credit was extended to the capital regional district, and the DAVE, or digital animation or visual effects tax credit, was extended to post-production services, encouraging content creators to finish post-production and editorial right here in B.C.

So 2015 will be yet another big year for the industry, with many multi-million-dollar productions going to camera in British Columbia, including Star Trek 3 , Steven Spielberg’s Big Friendly Giant, and Deadpool , starring Vancouver’s own Ryan Reynolds. Deadpool is currently filming in the Lower Mainland, and it is expected to employ more than 1,000 people and bring more than $37 million in spending to the region.

Creative Industries Week coincides with the launch of B.C. Creates, a communications initiative designed to promote and celebrate the industry’s success. B.C. Creates will showcase the work of the sector, shine a spotlight on local talent and bring the industry players together so that we can boost B.C.’s profile on the world stage and continue to build an exciting future for our vibrant, creative economy.

JAPANESE CANADIAN INTERNMENT

COMMEMORATION AT HASTINGS PARK

S. Simpson: “In early 1942, fuelled by racism, Canada uprooted over 21,000 Japanese Canadians from their homes on the west coast. Over 8,000 were detained in Hastings Park before being sent to internment sites in the B.C. Interior or to work camps across the country.”

This is the statement on the front of the program for “1942: Japanese-Canadian Internment at Hastings Park,” a very important event that occurred on Sunday, April 26. Over 200 people gathered at Hastings Park for the unveiling of four panels commemorating this disgraceful part of Canadian history.

These panels provide a snapshot of the life that was faced by the thousands of Japanese Canadians who spent time at Hastings Park. It was the start of a tragic experience where people lost their homes, their businesses, their properties, essentially their lives — where families were separated, and Canadian citizens of Japanese descent were labelled a threat to our country with no justification. This House has formally apologized to Japanese Canadians. That was the right thing to do. What this presentation at Hastings Park does is help us not to forget.

[1350]

I know as a child I often enjoyed the fair, Rollerland and concerts in Hastings Park with no knowledge of this past. Maybe today, because of this work, children and their parents coming to enjoy the annual fair will take a moment to read the panels and to begin to understand this sad part of our history.

This commemoration was a major effort by many that deserve our recognition. I want to thank all the members of the Japanese-Canadian community and others who contributed to making this dream a reality, especially the working committee that steered this project to completion over a number of years.

We know racism has been a scar on our history in Canada and B.C. Whether it’s the Chinese head tax, Komagata Maru , Indian residential schools or the Japanese internment, we need to ensure that these memories are never too far from our minds so as to guarantee we never repeat them. Let us thank "1942: Japanese-Canadian Internment at Hastings Park" for helping us to ensure that we stay vigilant and we do not forget.

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

CONSTRUCTION AND CHINESE WORKERS

R. Lee: I rise today in commemoration of the 130th anniversary of the Last Spike of the Canadian Pacific railroad and those who helped build it. In 1871 British Columbia joined Confederation after being promised that the CPR would be built. It took 14 long years to finish, with the Last Spike driven into the ground in Craigellachie, halfway between Revelstoke and Salmon Arm on November 7, 1885.

As the longest railroad built at that time, it was a symbol of ingenuity and determination. But it was built on the blood, sweat and tears of its workers, and its completion marked a dark

chapter in our history when a great injustice was inflicted upon the 17,000 Chinese labourers who were crucial to building the CPR.

They toiled away for only $1 a day, half of what a Canadian worker would have earned with the same work. They were often worked to death without proper wages, food, clothing or respect and dignity.

In 2006 the federal government recognized this hor-

[ Page 7812 ]

rendous treatment of those Chinese labourers and apologized. This history should not be forgotten, and it’s being remembered. The contributions of these Chinese labourers are being recognized with an exhibit at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver until May 31. The opening ceremony will be held this Saturday.

This exhibit features workers’ photographs, landing papers and labour contracts, along with documents and ink stamps. In addition, the CPR’s spikes are on display, on loan from the Suey Sun Tong Association and other early generation Chinese immigrant families.

I welcome everyone to visit this exhibit, learn more about our history — the good and the bad — and recognize the sacrifice of those who helped build British Columbia and Canada.

COOPERATIVE HOUSING

J. Shin: There are many kinds of cooperatives, from food co-ops to credit unions. Any group of people can form a co-op, where its members own the co-op and the co-op provides a service they need.

We have alarming statistics at hand, with one in four Canadian families spending more than a third of their income on housing. With housing and rental prices skyrocketing in Burnaby and across B.C., it is co-op housing that continues to prove itself as the affordable housing solution against the kind of housing crisis we face in Metro Vancouver today.

Since the 1930s co-op housing has successfully provided accessible means for its members to call safe and healthy living spaces home. Today there are 261 non-profit housing co-ops, comprised of more than 14,000 units in British Columbia. Burnaby-Lougheed is home to 943 households and ten co-ops, made up of people from all walks of life who work together to comanage the diverse and vibrant communities they form with much care and pride.

With the federal government’s operating agreements for co-ops expiring, starting this year through 2020, we will be seeing hundreds of B.C. families and individuals on limited and fixed income evicted from their homes. These are not just our seniors who have contributed lifelong into the public purse and who have earned and deserve dignified retirement but also young families, those with disabilities, single parents and new Canadians.

These are my constituents — real people with names and faces I’ve gotten to know personally through my weekly door-knocking and at their annual general meetings, picnics and socials.

Adequate housing is a fundamental human right under the United Nations definition and should be so for each and every British Columbian. So let’s work with the Co-operative Housing Federation for real solutions to fix the co-op housing crunch and keep B.C. families in their homes.

[1355]

WAYNE MARCH AND

SICAMOUS EAGLES HOCKEY CLUB

G. Kyllo: One of great things about this province of ours is that every community can boast of people who contribute so much of themselves that we can’t imagine our towns without them. One of those people in my riding of Shuswap, in my hometown of Sicamous, is Wayne March. Wayne is known in Sicamous as Mr. Hockey. Twenty years ago Wayne was instrumental in forming the Sicamous Eagles of the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League, the KIJHL, and has been the team’s general manager ever since.

The Sicamous Eagles have won the KIJHL league title three times, the provincial Cyclone Taylor Cup twice and the western Canadian Junior B championship, the Keystone Cup.

Nine of Wayne’s former players have been drafted, and five have gone on to play in the NHL, including the Nashville Predators captain and Canadian Olympic team gold medallist Shea Weber.

Young men from across Canada and the U.S. competing at the top of their hockey game come to Sicamous every August to attend try-outs for the Sicamous Eagles. In addition to providing world-class hockey skills development and encouraging teamwork on the ice, Wayne and his lovely wife, Lorraine, open up their home, billeting a number of players each season.

Wayne truly works to keep these young men active in our communities. A great example of this is how Wayne and the Sicamous Eagles collect books from around the community and donate them to the Literacy Alliance of the Shuswap, helping to promote literacy projects in the area.

The Sicamous Eagles are so much more than a hockey club. The Sicamous Eagles form part of the heart of our community. In addition to his position with the hockey team, Wayne manages the Sicamous and District Recreation Centre. Wayne and his dedicated team of staff draw numerous hockey tournaments to Sicamous each winter. They have an enormous positive impact on my community. Away from the rink, Wayne is a board member of the Sicamous Chamber of Commerce and is a driving force behind the annual car show in Sicamous.

At 71 years young, this Canadian army veteran of the Queen’s Own Rifles shows no signs of slowing down. I ask that this House join me in recognizing and thanking Wayne March for his many contributions to Sicamous and the Shuswap.

PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK IN

SOUTH OKANAGAN AREA

K. Conroy: Recently, last week, I attended a confer-

[ Page 7813 ]

ence in Spokane on the Columbia River treaty, where the majority of the discussion was about returning salmon to the Columbia River in Canada. For part of the conference, though, they talked about national parks and the economic value of national parks in the States and the considerable programs that they provide down there.

It made me think about what’s happening in the South Okanagan–Similkameen. The people there are clamouring for a national park, and over 70 percent of the people in the region support a national park. They look at the economic benefits that could come to the region by a national park. This area has some of the highest endangered species in Canada, in B.C., and it would protect those species.

It’s a huge source of tourism. I know considerable European tourists come to Canada specifically to tour our national parks. They see the economic value, but they see the beauty. They equate Canada with our national park system. It would be a huge drive for the region to have a national park in the Similkameen Valley there. When you talk to the people of the area, they talk about it with pride. They want to see that national park. They want to see people come to see their area. They want to share the beauty of their area.

I was recently at the burrowing owl site. They want to see that happen also, because they see that the burrowing owl is an endangered species. They also want to have a national park where they can have tourists come to see the many benefits of what a national park can bring to the area.

I agree with the 70 percent of the people in the region who are very supportive of a national park and hope that we all in this House can support them as well.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

SURREY GUN VIOLENCE AND

ANTI-GANG PROGRAM FUNDING

J. Horgan: Last night two more shootings in Surrey. Last week, when I asked the Premier what the response of the government was going to be, she said: “We are doing everything we can to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first place, helping them find a way to a life that is different from the path they might go on.” That was last week. Yesterday the Premier announced a $270,000 lift to the Wrap program in Surrey that will do away with half of a 40-child wait-list.

[1400]

My question to the Premier is: what are you saying to the families of the other 20 kids that will not be affected by your announcement yesterday?

Hon. C. Clark: I want to put politics aside for a minute here and just take a second to talk directly to the people of Surrey, who have been so affected by this. I want people in Surrey to know that the government of British Columbia stands with them, that we are behind them, that we are working and showing the leadership that they expect from all levels of government to ensure that we deal with this problem.

There are two issues. There are two sides to it. One of them is law enforcement. That means that part of that is making sure that those 100 new officers that Surrey has requested and we’ve approved come as quickly as possible from the federal government. We are working on that to make sure that the people of Surrey feel safe and secure in their streets.

The other part of that is crime prevention. It’s working in programs like the Wrap program, which we are doing. I should say that yesterday, when we announced this in Surrey, people who are involved in the Wrap program — people like Jesse Sahota, the RCMP chief superintendent — and many, many people who live and work there were very happy to hear that the province is making a new commitment to support a very important program that has put Canada on the map nationally and internationally when it comes to keeping kids out of gangs.

There is always more that we can do and more that we will do. But I think it’s important in this House today, when there is such a serious issue facing the people of Surrey, that the Leader of the Opposition and all of us take the politics out of it and think about how we can work together, rather than just fight with each other here, to try and find solutions.

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

J. Horgan: I think the Premier is looking for a fight where none exists. I’ve been saying consistently since last week, when I attended a forum in Surrey and listened directly to parents and families, that this isn’t a partisan question. This is a question of safety and security, which is a fundamental responsibility of the province of British Columbia, to ensure that our citizens feel safe in their homes, safe in their streets, safe in their communities.

I appreciate that the Premier wants to make the statement that I’m somehow opposed to direct action in this regard. I am absolutely not. But I have an obligation, not just on behalf of the people of Surrey but the people of British Columbia, to say that when you miss the mark, Premier, it’s my obligation to inform you of that.

Making an investment — a one-time investment — to a problem that has been with us not just since the Liberals became the government of British Columbia but for some considerable period of time…. If we have unanimous support in this House to fully fund a program like the Wrap program, which is what I said seven days ago, not criticizing the government in any way — in fact, encouraging the government to take that full measure of

[ Page 7814 ]

step to get those 40 kids off the wrong track and on the right track — that’s not a partisan statement.

I’m saying to the Premier now that 20 kids remain on that wait-list. What are you going to do about it?

Hon. C. Clark: I do look forward to hearing some encouragement from the opposition sometimes, some days. Unfortunately, around this issue we haven’t heard a lot. It is important, as the member for Surrey-Newton has said, and I think quite rightly, that we set politics aside, that we make sure this does not become a partisan issue.

It’s one that we have to deal with collectively to try and find solutions, and we’ll only do that if we try and do that in a non-partisan, non-political way. It is much too important for the people of Surrey. The people of Surrey need to know that we are working together on this and, in fact, that we are encouraging one another.

I’ll say this. Yesterday when we committed the $270,000 in additional money to the Wrap program, something that was applauded by the people of Surrey — in fact, something that the city of Surrey specifically asked us to do — we also set out to call on our partners in the federal government to also step up and renew their funding for the program, as well, to make sure that all of those kids who are waiting or who could be waiting in the future have access to those programs.

They’ve told us they will expedite, as fast as they can, the 100 new police officers for Surrey at our request. We’re very pleased about that, and we hope it happens soon. We also know that they understand how important this issue is to Surrey, to British Columbia and to the whole country. I think, in recognition of that concern, we will see our federal partners come to the table and support this just as fully as we have.

[1405]

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

J. Horgan: The Premier just said, “Fully support, as we have,” and acknowledged at the announcement that half of the kids on the wait-list will remain on the wait-list.

Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’ Services said the following: “We need to demystify the gang lifestyle for kids.” I agree. He also said: “Threat assessments on our young children and people are needed.” I agree. He also said: “Determine if there are factors leading this young person to enter the gang lifestyle.” I agree. I believe all British Columbians and every member of this Legislature agrees with the member from Surrey in this regard.

Again, I’m hopeful that the Premier is not looking for a fight where none exists, because I will support the government in fully funding the Wrap program.

I’ve even got a suggestion where you can get the money from. The suggestion would be the city of Jumbo, which does not exist. There are no citizens at risk. There are no citizens at risk in Jumbo — $300,000 going to Jumbo. Government is about choices. The Premier yesterday didn’t have enough money to take all the kids off the wait-list, and I am cooperating with her and offering up a suggestion that I believe would be supported by every member of this House, save perhaps the member for Kootenay East.

To the Premier, will she divert resources that are underutilized in other areas of government to focus on the challenges that we, all of us together, are facing in Surrey? Will she do that today?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, he laid off the politics for about two minutes. I’d say two minutes is still progress, so we’re getting somewhere at least on this.

This issue is way too important to be treated as a partisan issue. It’s something that we really do need to work together on cooperatively and collaboratively and recognize that for each step that government is taking in this, we’re doing it to try and make sure that we protect those kids and stop them from going into gangs.

Yesterday when I met with the chief superintendent, with the school board CEO, with the mayor and with people who run the Wrap program, we talked about some of the other things we could do.

A help line for parents, an anonymous way to be able to make sure that people are able to seek help rather than going directly to the police when they see their young people are being attracted to gangs, to be able to stop that in advance, recognizing that for many parents, as I think all of us can imagine, there is a great deal of shame involved in admitting and bringing forward someone in your family who you may think is joining a gang or has joined a gang. We need to try and make sure that all those avenues are there for parents — so a tip help line, making sure that people can do that anonymously and come forward.

Making sure that we’re supporting the Wrap program in a new way, with new money, that we haven’t done before — calling on our federal counterparts to do the same. As I said, I’m confident that they are going to step up because they, like us, understand how important this issue is for people in Surrey every single day. Expediting the new 100 police officers who will come to the city of Surrey. That’s something, again, we’ve worked hard on with the federal government.

We have more to do and more that we are doing, but politics of the opposition aside, I want to speak directly to the people of Surrey, and I want them to know today that we stand with them, that we are working very hard to make sure that we address this issue. We know that through law enforcement and crime prevention, we can make sure that Surrey is known for all of the great things that happen there every single day.

[ Page 7815 ]

ACCESS TO CANCER TREATMENT

AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

S. Fraser: Jean Kanngiesser, a constituent of mine from Port Alberni, has been waiting since last summer for a medically recommended colonoscopy. In 2011 she had three significant procedures to have a large polyp removed from her colon. When she went back last summer for her three-year check, after a bout with breast cancer, both she and her doctor were dismayed to discover that she could not get the recommended colonoscopy.

[1410]

Jean is yet another of my constituents at high risk for cancer, but without the necessary and medically recommended diagnostics, there is no way of knowing for certain if she is healthy. Can you imagine what it’s like living with that, waiting? And her own doctor can do nothing but wait with her in frustration and fear.

Does the Minister of Health think it is acceptable for Jean to wait nearly a year — a year late — with no sign of this colonoscopy even being scheduled?

Hon. T. Lake: We are always happy to follow up with individual patients if they are experiencing challenges.

It’s important to understand the different levels of colonoscopy — and any diagnostic procedure, for that matter. We have the FIT program, which is a screening colonoscopy program, so that if there is hidden blood in someone’s stool, the immunochemistry finds that out, and you’re scheduled for a colonoscopy.

Through that program we have 155,000 patients who have been registered. Nearly 1,100 patients have been diagnosed with a high risk for cancer, had surgery and quite readily had their lives saved because of this program that we have put in place here in British Columbia.

There are other types of colonoscopies. Routine surveillance colonoscopies after a procedure was done in the past. There are diagnostic colonoscopies that are done when clinical signs appear and a physician wants that done right away.

If a physician feels their patient needs to have urgent access for a colonoscopy for medical reasons, they can always put that patient at the front of the line. Any patient who feels that they’re in that position should talk to their physician to make sure that’s exactly what happens.

J. Darcy: Whenever we bring forward in this House stories of real people who are suffering because they can’t get access to timely medical care, the minister’s response is, sadly, completely predictable.

This woman has gone to her doctor. Her doctor is as frustrated as she is. This woman has had cancer already. She is at high risk, and the answers the minister gives are no solace to Jean, who needs urgent treatment and care now.

You know, it doesn’t help Jean that the minister likes to point the fingers elsewhere — in this case, at the doctor. She’s probably not impressed either by this minister’s continual efforts to try to duck responsibility, as he continues to do today.

Jean has had cancer. She is at high risk. She’s worried about her health, and she wants to get a procedure done. Surely, that’s not too much to ask in British Columbia today.

Madame Speaker: Question.

J. Darcy: Why isn’t the Health Minister ensuring that Jean, and people like her, has access to the timely medical procedures that she absolutely needs to make sure that she is able to remain healthy?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite apparently are highly trained physicians and can diagnose, treat and recommend treatment for every person in British Columbia.

We have highly trained physicians, who care for their patients, who have the ability to make clinical judgments. When they feel their patient needs urgent treatment, they can move their patient to the front of the line. If the physician is feeling that their patient needs to have that service, it will be done.

It was this government that set up the patient care quality offices throughout the health authorities in British Columbia so that if a patient isn’t getting the service they feel they need, they can go to the patient care quality office for a review.

We on this side of the House support our health care system, our very highly trained physicians. In this case, if I was the patient who was concerned, I would go back to my physician and make sure that if she needs urgent treatment, she will get it.

[1415]

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION PROCESS

AND ACCESS TO RECORDS

M. Mungall: Well, a “no records” response to freedom-of-information requests has become too frequent with this government. While the Premier has promised an open government, reality is proving to be something quite different. You just can’t take her at her word.

Last week we asked the Minister of Citizens’ Services about a briefing note prepared on August 20, 2010, that described an indemnity granted to the current Premier, a briefing note that we have obtained but that the government claimed did not exist.

The minister has had plenty of time to look at this case. So can he now tell us why these records weren’t produced when we asked for them?

Hon. A. Virk: The British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as the member opposite certainly knows, has the broadest coverage in

[ Page 7816 ]

Canada. The member opposite certainly knows, as well, that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act is quite clear on what information can and quite clear on what information cannot be released. The member opposite also certainly knows that it’s trusted professional public servants, whose decisions are indeed guided by that act, that are responsible for ensuring the appropriate information that’s permitted within the act is released in a timely fashion.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, that was definitely less of an answer that we got here today than what the media got. The minister told the media…. He said that his staff said that our request wasn’t properly directed. That just isn’t true. We directed our request to the Ministry of Finance risk management branch, the branch that was listed as the contact on the document. Another FOI confirms that this branch does, in fact, prepare these notes.

Will the minister please explain why the government denied the existence of these documents?

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, the member certainly knows that the act is, indeed, administered by very senior and well-trained public servants who worked through the request. The scope of the request, as I’m advised, changed. The requester should have canvassed more broadly and determined where the records were located.

There is a process. There is a process that members can certainly follow if they feel that the process is not followed.

Section 4 and

section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act are very clear on the remedies available.

D. Eby: Now, we asked the minister last week about why freedom-of-information requests for e-mails from his chief of staff came back also claiming no records exist. In fact, records did exist — lots of records. Mr. Facey sent 41 pages of e-mails to the minister, e-mails that included advice to cabinet and policy advice.

Has the minister now spoken to Mr. Facey about why he broke the rules by deleting or not disclosing these important government records?

Hon. A. Virk: It’s standard practice to maintain good record management, and there’s a duty to manage those records appropriately. In this case, all appropriate records were responded with. There’s an onus on staff, including my own staff….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: There’s an onus on all staff, including my own staff, to manage their records in accordance with the legislation and in accordance with FOI requests.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

[1420]

D. Eby: Members of this House will remember it was just a few months ago that the minister didn’t disclose to this House the content of his own e-mails sent while he was a board member at Kwantlen University. Now he has a staff member who also didn’t disclose e-mails, important e-mails, and — no surprise — the minister doesn’t see any problem here. Anyone else, after last week’s questions, would certainly, at a minimum, go and speak to his chief of staff.

Does the minister believe, as this side of the House does, that his own personal history around failing to disclose e-mails is compromising his ability to do his job properly and deal with his chief of staff?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, as I said, all staff across government, including my own, are expected to manage their records in accordance with the appropriate policy and to respond appropriately as well. It’s mandatory for all staff working in the minister’s office to also receive training on the Freedom of Information Act. In this instance, all the appropriate records were provided, and I will clarify my expectation that all staff abide by the act.

S. Robinson: It appears that government’s practice of claiming that records don’t exist doesn’t end at the Minister of Citizens’ Services office. Oh no. In fact, we recently requested e-mails sent by the Premier’s deputy chief of staff, Michele Cadario, over two three-day periods last November. It was a very, very specific request. We received a “no records” response, meaning that over those six days Ms. Cadario didn’t send any e-mails, or perhaps she destroyed them all.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain why the Premier’s deputy chief of staff, a pretty important person, didn’t send any e-mails over two three-day periods last November?

Hon. A. Virk: I do have a copy of the act that I can certainly provide the member afterwards, and perhaps the member opposite may certainly refresh herself on the act.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, my staff and all staff are expected to act in accordance with policy and act accordingly within the FOI legislation.

[ Page 7817 ]

S. Robinson: Well, we also requested records that were sent and received by the Premier’s chief of staff, Dan Doyle, over the same period. And guess what. It appears that Ms. Cadario sent her boss, Mr. Doyle, at least 15 e-mails during that period.

They weren’t transitory notes talking about lunch plans or dinner plans. They were proposals for providing legal representation for the families of the victims of the Babine mill explosion. They contained policy advice on Site C — records of important policy discussions. But Ms. Cadario apparently destroyed them or, somehow, they just weren’t in the records.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services please explain to this House why senior political staff in government are either destroying or hiding important government records and then claiming that they just don’t exist?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, it’s even more abundantly clear that I’ve got to provide a copy of the act to the member opposite, and perhaps I’ve got to provide the member opposite with training under the act as well. It sounds like a good idea.

The government responds to almost….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Virk: The government responds to almost 10,000 FOI requests each year, and the severing of FOI records is done consistently by professional public servants in accordance with the act.

[1425]

D. Routley: We have a copy of the act, but I think the minister just offered to provide a copy of the training program. Well, we also asked for details of the training program political staff receive on their obligations under FOI, training that explains what they must keep, what they can delete and what they must disclose. What was the government’s response? Well, they told us to FOI an FOI training manual that explains how to work under FOI so that they could redact it under FOI.

Is the minister embarrassed to hand over such a straightforward document?

Hon. A. Virk: Maybe I’ve got to simplify it for the member opposite. The severing of FOI requests….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Virk: Maybe I should speak slower. Maybe I should speak slower.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: I will simplify it and slow it down. The severing of FOI requests is done by trusted public servants who apply the act when they supply information.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: What we have is a severe case of irresponsibility, in the case of the minister. As far as severing of documents goes, the minister responsible for FOI is hiding behind FOI in order to keep a training manual on FOI secret. You just can’t make this stuff up.

My question for the minister is simple. What evidence can he produce that shows that political staff in his government have been trained to follow the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. A. Virk: As I’ve said a number of times, the sound record management and knowledge of FOI legislation are an ongoing effort. It’s an ongoing effort and an ongoing process. Information and privacy training is available to all public servants. It’s, in fact, available 24-7 in an on-line course.

Let me be clear that the application of the act is consistent. If the member suggests that the act is not being followed, the member is incorrect.

M. Farnworth: Well, we’ve listened to the minister responsible for freedom of information in the province of British Columbia try and tell this House why key documents are not released, why the act or how the act is supposed to be applied, and yet when you ask to make sure how staff are trained — the documents, the program in place to train staff — as my colleague has said, you have to FOI it.

Does the minister not understand the ridiculousness that what is a training manual for the public service in the province of British Columbia on how to deal with information requests under the FOI Act — those training documents themselves, that training manual — is to be kept secret and not made public unless you receive a request under FOI? And even then, it’s under “denied.” Does he not understand the ridiculousness of that?

Will, then, he at least commit to the House that he will table those training manuals on how to use the FOI Act in this House so that all members can have at least some idea that in fact the act is being followed properly?

[1430]

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, information-and-privacy training is available to all public servants and available, as I said, once again, 24-7, and it’s available even on line. In fact, I’ve spoken to the government’s chief information officer to ensure that public servants have a clear and consistent approach to the application of the act.

[ Page 7818 ]

[End of question period.]

Hon. T. Lake: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. T. Lake: I’d like to table a document on the colon screening program from the B.C. Cancer Agency which outlines follow-up recommendations regarding screening and surveillance guidelines.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development — and, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 11.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

B. Routley: I’m happy today to take my place on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. I guess it comes as no surprise that this government would invent a plan that threatens teachers, threatens students’ privacy and cripples school boards’ and school trustees’ autonomy.

It attacks the basic democracy in the province of British Columbia by…. Imagine this. The minister now wants to tear pages out of the handbook for community leadership. No longer will school trustees have their elected rights in the province of British Columbia. The big hammer of the government of British Columbia is once again going to reach in.

The head of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Jim Iker, recently told The Tyee newspaper that he’s absolutely baffled by this bill. “Why would a government that just achieved a hard-fought contract settlement with teachers then introduce Bill 11? ‘I thought they wanted labour peace,’ Iker said.”

This gives me the opportunity to reflect on my experience, and I had a lot of experience with labour relations. Contrary to popular belief, as a union rep that negotiated with more than 50 companies, I didn’t go into bargaining with the goal to have a strike or a lockout; I went into bargaining with the goal of reaching a fair achievement for working-class people.

I’m happy to report that in 95 percent of the situations we were able to find a fair agreement at the end of the day. But it was through listening and real collaboration, not surprise, like what this government is doing here.

[1435]

Why this government insists on creating conflict in education, one can only speculate. It makes no sense to me — none, zero sense. Let me explain why it makes no sense to me. When I was a young man working in a veneer plant, I had the kind of command-and-control management that this Liberal Party represents — command-and-control, top-down management. I still remember the experience. That manager managed to take us from one of the better-producing veneer plants….

Veneer, by the way, is the stuff that goes into making plywood. We were a supplier in the Youbou veneer plant for the Victoria Plywood plant of the day. I’m reaching way back to the 1970s and my first experience. I was in my 20s at that time. I remember it well, because the entire crew was turned against the management team with this command-and-control attitude, who came down and brought the hammer down every opportunity, had lots of criticism for the crew, had no words of kindness and no collaboration, no willingness to listen to what the crew thought or could do.

I still remember my job. I was working on the booms, and they used to cut mostly fir. Every now and then I’d get a balsam log, and it was my job to make sure that it was prepared for the veneer plant lathe. I would cut them most of the way through but leave a little bit of holding wood so that they wouldn’t sink to the bottom, which I knew, as a boom man, that they would do.

You know what? That manager thought he knew better. He came down, and he had the audacity, from a top-down management style, to tell me, “I know how to do your job” — even though he didn’t have a clue — and he said: “You don’t leave those on anymore. You cut them off.” So you know what? I cut them off, gladly, each and every day, knowing what was about to happen.

Sure enough, in a few months we’d built up such a pile of them that we couldn’t cut a single log. Then we had to bring in the tug to blow out underneath the wharf. Why? Because some idiot manager wouldn’t listen to his crew, wouldn’t understand what needed to be done. Then we had the whole veneer plant down while we blew out underneath the boom shack and got it ready.

This kind of stuff went on throughout the entire operation. We had the worst management relations; we had the worst operation. You know, if it wasn’t for the fact that finally somebody in the higher level of that company — it was BCFP at the time — said: “We’ve got to clear this guy, this deadwood, out and get in somebody that can, maybe, really manage.”

I consider myself fortunate. I got to see the fresh, clear thinking of a manager that came in with real ideas, real collaboration, real listening — somebody that wasn’t going to, from the top down, decide he knew what was best. His name was Hody Hodson. I remember it well, just

[ Page 7819 ]

like it was yesterday, because it was one of those teachable moments.

I hope the Liberals that are here are actually listening, because you can learn a lot from that young man’s experience, and it happens to be me. That was going from the worst production in the province of British Columbia, certainly on the coast, and terrible labour relations to the best in a matter of weeks. In less than a couple of months we were the highest-producing veneer plant.

I want you to know how he did it. You could write a book about this stuff, about how to do things right, how to work with young people, how to make labour relations and discussions matter. It was Hody coming down, and he put his arm around me. I still remember. He told me a little joke, kind of goofy, and put his arm around me.

He looked at me, and I still remember. He did something the Liberals could never do. He said: “I’ve got to tell you. I don’t know a thing about being a boom man. I don’t know a thing about your job. But you know what? I’m hoping that you can help me, because I’ve never run a veneer plant before. I know that you know how to do your job down here, and I’m hoping I can count on you.” Again, the magic words: “I’m hoping you can help me.”

[1440]

You know, he went away. I was a young man. I’d never heard a manager come down and say: “Could you help me?” Wow, what a concept. What a concept for these B.C. Liberals to ponder, the idea of asking teachers: “Can you help me? You know, I don’t know what I’m doing. I don’t have a clue. I’m not a professional teacher. Maybe we should ask for help.” No, that’s not what’s going on.

Anyway, this magic word of “help” and treating people with dignity. Hody worked that through the entire veneer plant. Again, a teachable moment. All young people, not used to this idea of command and control, the old-style management. It’s like yesterday’s news. If managers today don’t get hold of a management style where you listen to the people that you work with and actually allow them the dignity in the workplace to come up with good ideas….

Any of you can, if you read the business

section once in a while, pick up points from the ten best companies in British Columbia or the ten best companies in Canada. You know what they all have in common? They all have in common that they have good labour relations, that they bring the best out of people, that they allow and promote innovation from within the company. They allow people to feel special. They come up with collaborative ideas, whether it’s work-sharing or all kinds of wonderful ideas that can come up.

Again, going to the former manager. He used to be like the Liberals. He went down, and he threw peanuts at the crew. “Here, peanuts, popcorn.” Everybody made animal noises and were angry.

No, they got rid of that notion of treating people with disrespect. Both sides ended up in total disrespect. Then what comes is Hody with his wonderful sense of humour and his asking for help. He came down one day, and he asked me: “Bill, I talked to the guys up there at the lathe. They said, ‘You know, if you could’” — there were a lot of big logs coming in — “‘every third or fourth log, if you’ve got them, bring in a smaller one, that helps us at the lathe clean up the ribbons.’”

When they used to cut a log on the lathe, they would cut these ribbons, and they would pile up and make a mess. They needed the opportunity to clean them up.

He came to me and asked me for help. As a young man, that was a magic word for me. He wanted my help. You know what I did? I went out there and busted my butt. Maybe I can’t say that. I worked really hard on behalf of the job that I was doing. I knew that I could do it, that I could do what he was asking for help for.

Just the fact that he gave me the dignity and respect to say, “You know what you’re doing. I need your help,” I went out there and worked extra hard. He came down later in the day. I still remember him coming down after about four or five hours. Again, he puts his arm around me. I didn’t know what to make of this guy, laughing and joking. He’s got his arm around me, and he says: “I just want to thank you, Bill. It was wonderful what you’re doing, because they’re telling me up at the lathe that things are going so much better now. You’re helping make that happen. I just want to thank you.” Away he went.

You know, he didn’t have to come down every day after that. He didn’t have to give me a raise or pay me more money. He sure as heck didn’t need to threaten me or threaten to attack my professional development and tell me how to do my job. No, he certainly didn’t have to. He just had to treat me with the dignity and respect that all and every worker…. Certainly, what the teachers expect, in return, is a little collaboration.

We went from the lowest to the highest. The workers had the radio station on. They had the boombox going. They were pulling veneer like it was no tomorrow. In fact, he said to the crew one Friday night: “If you want to crank it up a bit, here is the number we need, and you can go home early.” Well, we ended up going home a half-hour early because we got the highest production level that was possible, I think, in a veneer plant at the time. It was some kind of a record.

[1445]

Again, all of that was possible by real collaboration — really listening to the crew, really giving them the dignity to feel that they had a contribution to the workplace, that they mattered, that what they did was important, that management was there to support and listen and to provide whatever the workers needed to make it happen.

We don’t have that in the province of British Columbia. Instead, we have a Liberal government running around in a glass house with a sledgehammer, slashing away with their sledgehammer, breaking the desks of the school board of trustees, saying: “Oh no. Forget that plan that

[ Page 7820 ]

you are running things. We’re going to run things for a while. We think somebody that might have been in charge of advertisement or was a car salesman….”

I don’t know. Imagine me. Imagine if I thought, as some former labour guy or some millworker or veneer plant worker, that I should be deciding on the professional development for teachers. Now, how dumb would I be to come up with a plan like that?

Interjection.

B. Routley: No, no. That’s what we’ve got over there. They’ve got a bunch of politicians sitting around with nothing better to do than to come up with a plan that they know how to have professional development for teachers. Oh yeah. They really…. Oh, they’ve got it all figured out. They’ve got nothing better to do than go around and destroy things, and so they do. They attack the school trustees.

My son — I phoned him the other day, and I said: “What do you think about it?” He’s a trustee up in Lake Cowichan now. “What do you think about this government’s plan?” Of course, it was the immediate response of every trustee organization. He says: “How can a government attack the democratically elected role of school trustees who are elected by their constituents in the community to do what the Liberals think, to listen to the command and controls from above?”

No. They’re supposed to act on behalf of the constituents in their community. That includes things like community land. Like, if there is a school that’s been there…. A lot of those schools and school lands have been part of the community, not just a school. A school isn’t just a school; it’s a community meeting place. The very notion that we’re going to have the big hand of upper command and control management come reaching in, grab the sledgehammer and slash about some more — not only trustees, but now the teachers….

Bill 11 includes amendments to the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teachers Act in four primary areas. You know, I heard the minister call them pillars. I would call them plunder, not pillars. They were plundering the existing rights of school trustees, of teachers, of professionals, of community democracy.

They claim they’re building a framework for continuing professional development. At the risk of making someone sad, I have to say it’s more jiggery-pokery. It’s the kind of stuff…. The unilateral right of the minister to impose professional development on teachers at his whim.

My friend is here who happens to know something about education. He was a principal. When I think about the fact that he has to witness this nonsense going on, and he actually has professional credentials…. You think about the idea that somebody who is a professional teacher….

It’d be like a professional forester. Oh, maybe that’s coming next week. Maybe it’s coming next week that we’re going to have a new act to tell the foresters how to do…. The minister, who has got no experience whatsoever as a professional forester….

Maybe he’s going to bring in legislation, and he’s going to start telling the professional foresters association how they can do their job — especially professional development. Oh my goodness. I’m sure he has some real ideas on what he’s got in mind. Maybe he’s been to a different country, and he wants to impose some kind of professional development idea.

The problem is nobody even knows what’s going on. All the groups…. Education has to be like this. There are all these different players, and nobody in the rest of the sandbox knows what’s going on. All they know is they’re once again getting sand kicked in their face from the government, who says: “Oh well.” You know?

[1450]

The bully on the block comes into the sandbox and kicks the sand in the school teacher’s face and says: “Oh well. So what? We negotiated with you. We want a few more command and control tools here. A little hammer never hurts.”

Then the same thing with the school boards. Those school boards should be coming cap in hand to the government — cap in hand, beholden to whatever is going on, whatever flavour of the day the minister thinks up. “We want them shaking in their boots.” That’s what this Liberal bunch is saying. “We want them to know that we can take their land away, that we can create partnerships. We can have the school district next door in charge of your school if we feel like it. Ha, ha, ha.” Yeah, that’s what we’ve got going on.

They talk about the minister’s right to impose professional development. They’re going to facilitate delivery of shared services. That’s another fancy jiggery-pokery way to say that this is actually…. So the word “facilitating.” Let’s just change that up to what it really means, but they can’t put it in the legislation. It’s forcing the delivery of shared services. It’s not facilitating. Who are they kidding?

They’re not going to facilitate anything. They’re going to ram it down their throat, and they’re going to do it if they want, and that’s the way it’s going to be. The minister’s going to have the power, and they intend to come in here with their horses and ride in and just charge away at the same groups. You know, they’ve had these huge disputes over all these years.

Today I picked up the newspaper. Vaughn Palmer wrote a thoughtful piece about what’s been going on. He points out that back in 2001 — think about this, the decade that’s gone on — the then Liberal leader announced to the public as part of their plan: “I don’t believe in ripping up agreements.” The soon-to-be Premier said: “I’m not going to be tearing up any agreements.”

Now, I get asked…. Where do I talk about jiggery-pokery or sleight of hand or that kind of thing? Why do I use that word? Well, what do you call a government that

[ Page 7821 ]

stands for election and says, prior to the election, “Oh, we’re not going to rip up contracts” — not just to teachers but to health care workers? “Oh, no. You can trust us. We won’t be doing that.” And then they go ahead and do it — a matter of public record.

There are probably a lot firmer words I could come up with than “jiggery-pokery.” I think that’s a kind word. It’s like “razzle dazzle, sleight of hand.” That’s the kind of stuff that we see going on, and I don’t know what else to call it. If somebody’s got a better word, they should ship it over to me because I just haven’t found one that fits all of this razzle dazzle that goes on.

You know, it’s stunning. Health care workers — in 2002 they were told: “Oh, no. We won’t be doing that.” We’re back to teachers being stunned. The teachers are stunned right now. What?

What do teachers write in their letter? Their letter to government starts off with the BCTF calling on the government to…. The act is an “infringement on the rights and responsibilities of democratically elected boards of education.” Absolutely. The act is an intrusion “into teacher-led and -directed professional development,” and the act allows “the collection and use of student data without sufficient privacy protections.”

I could go on. But it’s so obvious to me, again, with my experience, that this is not only an attack on the individual groups, teachers and…. This is uncalled for.

We don’t even know…. I’ve talked to the different groups and asked them: what problem do you think they’re trying to resolve? What’s the problem? What’s the beef? And there’s no idea — no communication, no collaboration, no understanding of what they’re thinking. What does this really mean?

It’s probably somewhere about money. Obviously, the idea that you can command one school board to work together with another school board — I’m sure that they’re doing some of that now already voluntarily.

[1455]

At the end of the day, it’s all about imposing themselves from above — command and control taking over where they’re not invited.

Don’t forget, we already have democratically elected school trustees. If you look at what they’re there to do, you’ll find out that it’s exactly the kind of stuff that this government is intending to unilaterally change and take away. They’re going to force…. They’re going to drive change by forcing change instead of by collaboration. It’s micromanaging.

They talk about updating the accountability framework. I just love this language. It’s just so much fun to read, because the real intent about it is about how they want to tell teachers how to teach. They’re going to micromanage teachers, but they call it an accountability framework for student learning through reporting. Somehow, they feel that they’re going to get to the bottom of the matter by….

We get enough reports from the kids on what they’re doing or what they’re learning. For a second, I want to camp there. I was a school trustee in school district 66 in Lake Cowichan, which is no longer there. It amalgamated with the school district in Duncan to become what is now school district 79. It used to be school district 68.

In any case, when I was a school trustee I had the opportunity to hear a professor talk about professional development and teachers and their skills and the kind of things that a good teacher can do. I just want to use this example because it was one that stuck with me for years and years. In fact, here I am talking about it again today. It was a wonderful example of what we would want teachers to do and to aspire to.

I know that teachers are caring individuals who love to do — most teachers love to do — what they’re doing, and they’re not doing it for big wages because there’s not the kind of big wages involved that their degrees would imply. If they went into a trade, there’d probably be a lot more money involved after their years of training than what they achieve dealing with the most precious asset that we have in the province of British Columbia, and that’s our children. Yet it is funny how we value a certain kind of work.

Back to the point. This teacher was teaching grade 5 or 6. I forget the exact detail of that, but I think it was grade 5. She asked the children at the beginning of the year, not just the stuff about “How was your summer vacation?” but they were asked to learn a little bit about democracy and voting skills, and they were going to all be encouraged to bring in their favourite projects. If you were collecting rocks or stamps or whatever, bring that in, and we’re going to have a vote amongst the students on what’s the way forward over the coming six months or year on what we’re going to use as a theme as a classroom.

It was really very interesting, because what the class chose…. They voted on it, and it was almost unanimous, but a large number of the votes was for…. A young gal had brought in a collection of buttons.

Now, why is that interesting? Because they made the point that real education — I think most folks would agree with this professor on that — is about imparting information — and not just in a way that somebody can remember it. It’s not just about memory retention, but it’s also about having education exciting, as the professor said, “to make it like Christmas day every day that you’re learning something new.” For those kids, it was like Christmas day because they got to choose buttons.

The teacher found a way to ask the students to write about all of these different subjects, and they used the example of history. They used buttons in history. They talked about the kind of buttons that might have been used by certain former historical figures, and they researched the buttons.

Of course, they learned more about Napoleon talking about buttons than they might have otherwise remembered about Napoleon.

[1500]

[ Page 7822 ]

They also learned more about writing letters. They were all asked to write a letter, and they wrote a letter to all of these different groups. One of the kids thought of writing a letter to a marine-based submarine commander. You know what? The whole class was invited to go and tour the submarine. It’s a wonderful story. At the end of the day they went through the submarine, and of course, those kids will never forget that experience.

On the other hand, here we’re back to a government that says they know best about professional development. You know, we don’t even know where this came from. It just came out of thin air.

Despite the government’s promises of a commitment to co-governance with school boards…. And let’s remember that that wasn’t that long ago. You know, it’s hard not to laugh. To think that they actually went out and signed co-governance agreements with school trustees and school boards. I think it might have been a photo op or they were on a bit of a, you know, go around the community and meet with the trustees, and let’s sign a co-governance agreement.

But now the government is unilaterally taking their authority away and giving it to the minister to do things like demand imposed shared services to improve student performance — whatever that means. More weasel words.

Despite the promises of a new beginning following the end of the longest teachers strike in B.C. history, the government failed to consult, once again, with teachers on major, major proposed changes to professional development. This government’s refusal to consult prior to bringing the hammer down on professional development shows a real lack of respect for our B.C. teachers.

While other jurisdictions in the world are strengthening protections around student information and data gathering, this bill loosens restrictions on sharing student information, which is likely to facilitate the implementation of programs like MyEducation B.C. The school planning councils, a failed B.C. initiative, have been eliminated, and the superintendent of achievement….

Anyway, this bill — I see my time is running out — is really a kind of a wild, wild west attitude. They ride in, shoot them up and then get on their horses and ride out of town. But they’ve left the same kind of impression with the people of B.C. They just don’t care, and they just don’t listen.

S. Gibson: Part of British Columbia’s economic advantage, particularly in what remains our fragile global economy, is the quality of education. That’s important to our government. The better we prepare our young people to enter the workforce, the greater chance they have of enjoying a rewarding career through their lifetime. How important is that?

Education is the most powerful route towards an individual’s career satisfaction and a direct pathway to our own collective prosperity. Naturally, we want a highly skilled, highly adaptive workforce that is competitive and committed to lifelong learning and earning. The fact is British Columbia does have a world-class education system.

Interjection.

S. Gibson: That’s right. The Conference Board of Canada confirmed that in a report last June. B.C. was ranked first, number one — I could do that in my radio voice — number one among 26 jurisdictions, including all ten provinces and 16 peer countries, and earned an A-plus for high school attainment.

More than 91 percent of B.C. residents aged 25 to 64 have a high school diploma. That’s the highest score, not only among all ten provinces, but it also outranks Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In fact, British Columbia scored third overall in the entire world, with only Japan and Finland ahead of us. That’s a positive comment about the quality of teaching that we experience in this amazing province.

We are proud of B.C.’s world-class education system. But we’ve got to find ways to improve. We always want to raise the bar. That’s this government’s policy. That’s our standard. That means pursuing new, innovative approaches that promise better results for students.

[1505]

Ultimately, our focus is on producing better educational outcomes. If we can look for opportunities to spend less on administration, for example, and concentrate more on students, we’ll all benefit. We should pursue those savings. Shared savings are a part of that solution. British Columbians expect their tax dollars to be used wisely. Taxpayers want every available education dollar going to help children in the classroom.

For several years now we have been working with school districts, getting people together, focusing. We have now made some good progress through the first phase of the service delivery project. So far, the results have been that school districts collectively have saved nearly $8 million to date. That’s good news.

Through phase 2 of the project, the ministry and school districts will implement the working group recommendations in areas…. For example, group purchasing is a good thing to do — shared legal services, employee wellness and staff replacement costs. All good things to work at in shared services.

As we have worked through this, we’ve determined that the School Act can be a little ambiguous on the question of shared-service governance. With 60 school districts all delivering, in many ways, similar services, there are significant opportunities to reduce overhead costs through sharing of services. We want to make sure the legislation is very clear that they have the authority to enter into these service delivery arrangements. So it’s allowing that collective input. And that’s exactly what this legislation is all about. It represents a concerted attempt to do things

[ Page 7823 ]

better with limited resources and available funding.

I think we all realize that government is about stewardship. The Minister of Education will continue to work closely with districts as they evaluate and develop workable strategies to implement shared services. It’s good news for the taxpayers of British Columbia and for the students and teachers in the system.

Protection of privacy and personal information is also important. This is another aspect of this legislation concerning modernization of how students’ personal information is managed. We must ensure that it conforms with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act and protects the adequate safeguards and protections under the Protection of Privacy Act. At the same time, we need to have access to solid research and analysis to deliver approaches that work better for students. And that’s what this is all about.

We need to know that we are doing things well and how we can do things better. That means guidelines for the proper use of student data. Access to high-quality data is essential to improving educational programs and monitoring the impact of new curriculum and other learning innovations. At the same time, the protection of personal student information must remain a high priority. The disclosure and use of quality data must be balanced with the protection of personal student information.

The way personal information is currently managed through the School Act is inflexible and out of date. We are, therefore, modernizing existing provisions and safeguards related to the use of student personal information for consistency with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — very important. Previously, through the School Act, the disclosure of data tied to students’ personal education numbers was restricted to research specifically aimed at the evaluation of education programs.

By properly aligning the School Act, we are providing clear standards for the disclosure of personal information consistent with practice across the broader B.C. public sector. It’s all good news, and I’m excited to speak today in favour of this bill.

R. Austin: It’s my privilege to rise and to speak on Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. Before getting into the specifics of what this act is attempting to do, I’d like to take a few minutes to speak about the context upon which this piece of legislation is coming about.

[1510]

I think it’s fair to say that for those of us who’ve spent any time in the public education system…. And I was privileged to do that before becoming an MLA. Any time I see this government bringing forward bills around education, I get a kind of shiver going down my back. The reason for that is because what we’ve seen over a period of 14 years now — 14 years — is a government that has in large part undermined the quality of public education in this province. They clearly were elected in 2001 and had — let’s be honest — a very hidden agenda with regards to what to do in regards to public education.

As has been alluded to by prior speakers, the then Premier of the province was committed, prior to being elected in 2001, to maintain the legislation around the education act — education changes that made guarantees to ensure that teachers not only would be able to go into the classroom and teach, but they would have the necessary supports in place in order to do their jobs.

Upon getting elected and very soon sitting down here, coming into the Legislature and stripping those contracts and thus removing many of the supports that children required and teachers required in order to do their job — that kind of set the tone. And 14 years later, when I see another piece of legislation coming in saying that we’re going to somehow improve public education, well, I and a lot of people in the province of British Columbia, naturally, are very skeptical.

Let’s just look at the history here. As I mentioned, the teachers’ contract was stripped. What effect did that have on their ability to teach? More importantly, what effect did it have on the learning conditions of the children of British Columbia? Well, let’s see. I remember being elected and hearing in a throne speech here that we were going to be the jurisdiction in North America with the highest literacy. What has the outcome been?

Well, we’ve seen libraries closed. We’ve seen teacher-librarians lose their jobs. They have done the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do in terms of trying to have the support teachers, the specialized teachers, in place to support the classroom teachers. We’ve seen, as a result of all of these changes…. Many counsellors who help deal with behavioural problems or learning disabilities have been laid off and lost their jobs over the last several years. What we have seen is a dilution of the quality of supports in the classroom to enable our teachers to do their job.

Let’s get to more recent times. We have seen, just a few months ago, the longest strike in B.C. history. It’s very interesting to be in this Legislature and listen to the Minister of Education, who speaks in glowing terms of what I guess he sees as the wonderful success of that strike. He likes to stand here and say: “Well, it was a long strike. We were tough, we won, and we got a teacher contract that’s long.”

Let me, for a moment, give a little bit of feedback. When I spoke with the teachers in Terrace and Kitimat and the beautiful Nass Valley, they felt very disillusioned by the whole process. The reason why they went out on strike, the result of the strike…. They certainly don’t see this as any kind of success, when they were eventually forced back to work and into the classroom. I’ll tell you why.

The fundamental reason why they went on strike — in spite of what the government likes to say, which was that

[ Page 7824 ]

they just wanted to increase their salaries — was to fight for something that they’d been fighting for, for the previous 12 years, which was to improve the classroom conditions, the learning conditions, of the children. That has all been reduced because teachers who have been teaching since the B.C. Liberals came into power have seen the quality of the classroom supports go down endlessly. They were fighting for that, and I think parents understood that.

I think it’s fair to say that most of the teachers were really disgusted at some of the antics that took place during that strike. Let me give you an example. The government hired a PR firm, using public dollars to manage Twitter and Facebook accounts, sending out what the minister described as important information for parents.

[1515]

I think if you went and looked at those information bulletins, you’d see it was nothing but partisan activities happening on behalf of the B.C. Liberals. They weren’t sending out information to parents to help them get through the strike. What they were doing was they were sending out absolute propaganda, stating that teachers were greedy, that teachers just were doing this for extra money.

They never mentioned the fact that teachers were walking the line every day, giving up their salaries, their pay, in order to try and fight for the things that had been stripped and taken away. They were things which, by the way, — you know, we had this debate in this House — the B.C. Supreme Court agreed on.

Let’s understand this. Madame Justice Susan Griffin is not a member of the B.C. Liberal party. She’s not a member of the NDP. She’s an independent justice — highly valued and respected. She has deliberated on two occasions in regards to the battle that has gone forth, the continual war of attrition that the B.C. Liberals have put upon the teaching profession.

Here are some of things that she said. She said that the B.C. Liberals negotiated in bad faith, that they didn’t take the advice of their own staff when they were making decisions around public education. That’s a pretty challenging thing, I think, when a Supreme Court judge actually admonishes the government of the day for bringing in legislation which, by the way, was ruled unconstitutional.

Here we are in 2015, and we’re still going through the court process. My understanding is that even later this week there’ll be another ruling, and it may go on beyond that. That is the context upon which this piece of legislation is coming in — one in which teachers feel that they have been put upon and that parents have not had the kinds of supports for their kids that were expected. That’s the context before I even start to look at some of the details of this bill.

Now, I’ve heard many members on the government side say that one of the good things about this bill is that it’s going to enable the government to force shared services upon the school districts. In theory, that’s quite a good idea. If you’ve got several school districts, and all of a sudden they’re able to pool their resources and do something that could save taxpayers’ dollars, it may be a good thing.

But let me give an example of one of the great attempts at shared services over the last ten years. I’m going to speak for a minute about the computerized database system called BCeSIS that was a brought in by the B.C. Liberals. This was a new computer system brought in, designed by a company that actually had never ever before designed any form of software or database management around schools.

You know, good idea — let’s go to the market. Let’s find what is out there to try and bring in a database system that will give us better data, better information on our kids and how they’re doing. But let’s choose a company that’s never done it before. That was probably the first mistake.

Over a period of ten years we wasted $100 million — let’s round it off to $100 million — on BCeSIS. It was a failure from day one. It didn’t work. They forced the school districts to ensure that every teacher got training on BCeSIS. They denied that the system wasn’t working properly.

They spent millions more trying to fix problems, and by the time six years had run of this ten-year run of BCeSIS, the government was putting good money after bad. In fact, I remember a former Education Minister trying to defend BCeSIS by saying: “Well, you know, now it’s been six years. It’s like Windows 5. You’ve got to update it.”

Windows 5 had all of its own problems. I think people who buy Microsoft products would probably say that when you get a Microsoft product, it comes with a few glitches. But BCeSIS crashed on occasion on a daily basis.

Imagine being a teacher. Imagine being an administrator. You’re trying to put classes together. You’re trying to write reports and put data in, and you’ve got a computer system that breaks down on you on a continual basis.

Or if you make a slight mistake when entering data…. Here’s another great thing about the BCeSIS system. If you made a couple of mistakes in the entry process as you were signing in, after three mistakes…. A bit like when you go to get money out of a bank machine — if you’ve forgotten your PIN, after about two or three attempts, you’re out of luck. Well, it’s not the end of the world. You can always go into the bank, tell them who you are, and you can get your PIN back.

[1520]

But if you’re are a teacher and you made a mistake entering data in the BCeSIS system — well, guess what — you’re all locked out. You’re locked out for a couple of days. Never mind that you’ve got a deadline and you’ve actually got to get report cards in by a certain time.

That was the beauty of the BCeSIS system. It was an example of the government forcing school districts to

[ Page 7825 ]

engage in something that they said would save money, would give better data. It proved to be a disaster.

Surely, it’s better for local school trustees to make those decisions as to whether they want to take on something that the government’s offering them. Maybe they could do their own research, do their own due diligence and find out that, in fact, what is trying to be forced upon them is perhaps not the best thing. Maybe there’s another way to go.

I think that it’s important. If we’re going to have school trustees, if we’re going have elections, if we’re going to say that we believe in co-governance, then isn’t it better to have those who are duly elected actually do some governing?

School trustees already play a very important role for the government. They’re the ones who take the blame, having to make all the hard decisions, for the fact that the last 12 years the public education system has been underfunded. That’s the reality. I know that members on the other side will say: “Oh no. No, we’ve spent more money than in the history of mankind on public education.”

Then why is it that over the last 12 years the budgets that come out of Victoria have resulted in cuts in the classroom? Why is it? Why is it that you can go to every school district in the province of British Columbia and continue to hear school trustees, teachers, principals grumble that they don’t have the resources that they had in years previous? Clearly, there’s something not quite right here.

The fact is that costs have gone up which have not been covered by the government. They don’t like to talk about that. They like to say that per-pupil funding has gone up. Yes, it has. But clearly, it hasn’t gone up enough to cover all those downloaded costs that they, quietly, don’t pay for.

I’ll give you an example. In my school district 82 about seven years ago, I guess, they had to make a very, very big decision. They were so short of resources that the school board had to have discussions and go onto a four-day school week.

Now, you tell me how it is that in one of the wealthiest jurisdictions on planet Earth, in British Columbia, a school district could not afford to send the children to school five days a week. Explain that. It makes no sense. If they were being properly funded, then a country and a province as wealthy as this should have been able to send their kids to school five days a week. But no, not here.

They actually had to make cuts. Why? Because they can save on transportation in a school district that has very high transportation costs. They could save on maintenance and all the CUPE workers, who suddenly found themselves having a 28-hour week instead of a full week. That’s how they saved money.

Here is the interesting thing. If you went and spoke to any of those school trustees at the time, they would have told you that they weren’t making these decisions based on the welfare of the children. It wasn’t to improve public education in Skeena that they were putting their kids onto a four-day school week. No. They were doing it to make up for the lack of resources that were coming to that region, to that school district. This was how they had to resort to these kinds of extreme measures.

I’m sorry to say this. It’s not good enough for this government to say that this amendment act is here to improve things when all they have done over the last 14 years is make things harder and more challenging for the teachers.

Here are another couple of interesting statistics that people might want to hear. I heard the previous speaker talk about data. If you go and speak to our educational establishments, one of the very sad things coming out of the faculties of education is this. Within the first five years of young people coming out of the faculties of education, 40 percent of new teachers quit within the first five years.

Think of that. We spend a lot of money to subsidize post-secondary education. I think I’m right in saying that students pay roughly 23 or 24 percent of their cost of education and tuition and that the rest comes out of central taxation.

[1525]

We are investing huge amounts of money to educate new teachers who, after they enter the system, suddenly realize that the supports necessary for them to do their job aren’t there. They seek another job opportunity and leave the profession. What a chronic waste of this amazing social investment that we make.

If you speak to teachers who have been there longer, for many years, they will tell you — and it doesn’t matter what there politics are; it doesn’t matter whether they vote for the government or vote for the opposition — that the conditions in the classroom have deteriorated terribly over the last 12 years. That’s the reality.

When I hear people in this Legislature get up and say, “Well, our students perform well in this and well in that, and we’re winning some awards,” I would say this. It is in spite of what this government has done that teachers have struggled and worked so hard to ensure that, yes, we still do have a high-quality education system. It’s not because of what the B.C. Liberals have been doing. It is in spite of their efforts to undermine public education in the province of British Columbia.

Quite frankly, I think most teachers who have spent their lifetime dedicated to this will tell you what while they love their jobs, while they love working with kids — obviously, that’s why they go into the profession — it has not been an easy thing. Many of those who are close to retirement — I can tell you, as I’ve spoken to many of them — are looking forward to retirement. As they say: “Teaching just isn’t what it used to be when I got into the profession. It’s just not there. There’s just not the kind of help that’s required.”

Let’s talk about some of the specifics here. The B.C. School Trustees Association have been very clear about

[ Page 7826 ]

this bill. We hear a lot about co-governance, a lot of nice words in this House by various Education Ministers over the years — that it’s important that we have local decisions made in the areas around the province, because it is locally elected school trustees who know their communities best, who can set the agenda and the priorities that fit for the communities.

Yet here we have, in the most recent School Trustees Association meeting, them coming up with a resolution saying that they want this bill withdrawn. Why? Well, it’s the usual story with this government. They haven’t even been consulted on the potential changes that are being made in Bill 11.

No one came and said to them: “Listen, I know you guys co-govern this huge system which we call the public education system. You guys help to manage the dollars. You guys make local decisions. Why don’t you come and spend some time with us, and let’s figure out how we can make this system better together.”

No. Instead, they bring down Bill 11. It’s a surprise to the B.C. School Trustees Association. They say very clearly that they were not consulted. The minister says: “Well, no problem. We’ll bring in the bill, and then we’ll spend a few years consulting.” Is that the way to run the province of British Columbia? I don’t think so. Especially when you consider that a lot of this bill is enabling legislation.

Let’s be clear, for those people who might be watching. This isn’t a bill that, necessarily, is prescriptive in all of its clauses. What it says is, in many cases: “We, the government, will have the right to make these changes. Oh, and by the way, we’ll decide what those changes are later — in cabinet, in secret — and then we’ll let you know.” I’m sorry, but given the history of the B.C. Liberals in regards to public education, it’s no wonder that school trustees, teachers, administrators are a little bit wary of that kind of legislation.

No one knows what some of this stuff means in Bill 11. We hear some nice, kind words. But once it’s passed, they can then go and, by regulation, make changes at will without there being the proper discussion, without there being the proper input from the people who actually provide the service.

I was listening to some of the speeches from the government members at the beginning of second reading. The people were making the case that most self-directed professions take care of their own professional development. I think that is true.

What we have here in Bill 11 is an incursion by the government to be able, through the school trustees, to go and say to our professional teachers: “Listen. Not only do we want you to have these X amount of hours of professional development” — and in most cases that is already in the contracts, school district by school district, how many days the teachers have for professional development — “but oh, by the way, we’re also going tell you what it is you’re going to go and study.”

[1530]

If you have a profession, if you believe that teachers are a profession — and the other side, the Liberals, apparently say that they do — then surely the teachers can come up with their own ideas. Maybe they’ll have some consultations with their administrators. Maybe their school districts and their trustees will have some input. Maybe they’ll come up with ideas which will work for their entire community, if they have a certain problem or certain weaknesses or deficits that are specific to their own school.

Surely, isn’t that a way for teachers to be able to govern themselves and decide what their priorities are for getting further education to make themselves better teachers?

Why is it that folks down here — in a government that spent 14 years, essentially, in a war of attrition — are now going to have the right to use this legislation, by regulation, to suddenly say: “Oh, here are the priorities. Here’s what we think, out of Victoria, you should be learning in Dease Lake. Here’s what we think you in Kitimat should be learning when you go and spend time developing your skills to make yourself a better educator”?

It is counterintuitive to think that folks down here, centrally, know what is best for the kids in the communities that are so varied around the province of British Columbia. More importantly than that, it takes away from the very notion of having a profession. If you have a professional doing their job, let them do it and give them the supports necessary to let them do it.

We don’t have the Minister of Health standing up in this House and saying: “I want some legislation to tell the doctors what it is they’re going to learn.” That’s just not going to happen. We don’t have ministers here standing up and saying: “I’m going to tell the accounting profession what it is they’re going to learn to upkeep their skills.” It doesn’t happen. Yet here in Education this government says: “Yes, they’re professionals. We admire what they do.” Blah, blah, blah. “Oh, but by the way, we’re going to tell them, on such and such a date, for this amount of hours, what to do.”

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that these are professionals who know what it is, who’ve spent years studying, to do their job, and then we’re going to be micromanaging them out of Victoria. That’s not how you deal with professionals.

If you believe that they are learned and skilled at what they do, then get out of the way and let them do it, for goodness’ sake. That is what teachers want, and that’s what school trustees want. They want to be able to exercise their democratic rights as elected school trustees, and teachers want to be able to go into the classroom and teach without being told and prescribed what it is they have to do constantly.

There are many problems with this bill that I think need to be withdrawn or amended. You know, there’s no rush, frankly. I think that with a fall session and a bill that has got the School Trustees Association, the body that

[ Page 7827 ]

represents school trustees right around British Columbia, saying to withdraw this bill…. When you’ve got the profession itself — okay? — saying that they are very unhappy with this bill, then why don’t we put this on hold, frankly, and let’s go and do the consultation?

You know, this government, since the strike, has said: “We want to work together. We want to actually sit down and work with all the stakeholders in our education system to make it a better system.” Yet here we are again, once again, with a piece of legislation which really is ramrodding the views of the government without taking into consideration the experts in their field — the people who actually spend time every day with our kids in the classroom, making them, hopefully, the best citizens that we can hope to have in British Columbia.

I would like to take a minute here just to quote something that I read that came from a former school superintendent who writes here in the Times Colonist . His name is Geoff Johnson, by the way. He says: “Whether any of those elements of the public school system urgently needed ‘amendment’ is a moot discussion. But conflict is an essential element of a good headline, though, and that, in turn, is the bread and butter of politics. In the meantime, B.C. quietly tolerates one in five of its children being raised in poverty.”

You know, we don’t spend enough time talking about some of the real issues behind the challenges that teachers and families face here in British Columbia. I think this gentleman really touches on the root.

[1535]

Instead of bringing in legislation here that’s trying to strip school trustees of their democratically elected duties and to ramrod further rules and regulations down the teachers’ throats, why don’t we actually sit here and have a debate about the challenges of poverty in the classroom and what that has done to affect the teachers’ ability to do their jobs and what it has done to families who struggle to support their kids while they’re in poverty? Wouldn’t that be a better discussion to have here in British Columbia?

Of course, being a province that doesn’t even want to engage in a discussion and have an anti-poverty plan and has — what? — one in five children living in poverty, that’s something that’s perhaps not worth discussing. That’s not as important as bringing in amendments to the School Act which actually don’t make things better and make things worse. I think this gentleman has it absolutely right when he says that that is much more important than these kinds of amendments.

Really, what this bill is, is a bit of a whitewash. It’s a whitewash that doesn’t want to accept and acknowledge the 14 years of underfunding and the fight that the teachers have put on, on behalf of parents and kids. Instead, it wants to change the channel and have some other discussions about controversial elements, while not dealing with the real issues of poverty in the classroom and dealing with the issues of the kinds of changes that were made as contracts were stripped and resources taken out to help our kids. That is really what is taking place with this bill.

This bill, in

section 12, appears to give the minister authority over custody, maintenance and safety of school properties. Again, this authority already rests with the school board. So what’s the purpose of taking that away from them? It’s just another example of the fact that we are centralizing our school policy here and making more decisions down here. It’s simply not the right way to go.

In concluding my thoughts, I think it’s fair to say that when you have both the school trustees and teachers upset, and recognizing that there are elements of this bill that are, frankly, contrary to moving the education system forward….

Certainly, given the context of the challenging relationship between the teachers and this government, surely after the strike and everything we’ve gone through, I would have hoped and would have liked to have seen a collaborative approach take place so that any legislation coming into here has input from the main groups who have spent many, many years arguing with this government. At the end of the day, I still trust the teachers of British Columbia to do a better job educating our children than I do the Minister of Education.

C. James: I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill 11, a bill, for those who are just tuning in, that proposes amendments to the School Act, to the Independent School Act and to the Teachers Act.

I think, as my colleague before me did, it’s impossible to discuss Bill 11, a bill on education, without beginning with a little bit of history around this government’s approach to public education. And I have to say that it’s not a positive history. I wish I could say otherwise.

The government’s decision and direction on public education began shortly after the B.C. Liberals were elected. They started off their relationship with the public education system by tearing up a contract with teachers. A collective agreement that had been duly negotiated was torn up by this government.

As you can imagine, that certainly isn’t a way to start a positive relationship, a way to begin relationship-building with the education system, with the teachers union and with others — for a brand-new government to decide that that’s going to be one of their first acts when it comes to public education.

I also wish I could say that the B.C. Liberals recognized that this was the wrong direction and that they began to repair it. But sadly, that wasn’t the direction the government took. They decided to continue to pick a fight.

[1540]

I do find it interesting that our current Premier was then the Education Minister, and it was not a positive relationship with the public education system.

The ripping up of that contract, as it would for anyone, caused mistrust, broke the relationship, meant that

[ Page 7828 ]

money, scarce dollars, was spent on legal costs. I have to say that that has now been a 12-year, almost 13-year, process of scarce resources being spent on legal fights for breaking a contract.

That meant a gutting of supports for students, because when that contract was ripped up, it meant that support services and other services in schools all across this province, for students all across this province, were gone.

It meant that we saw a huge loss of counsellors in our school districts. It meant that the counsellors that remained were overloaded with caseloads and not able to take on the kind of preventative work that is so critical to our education system — things as simple as anti-bullying programs, things as simple as checking in with students to see how they were doing in the school day. Things that have a direct impact on that child’s education just weren’t able to be done because of the caseload and the workload of the kind of counsellors who were left there.

We had many schools during that time period which lost their teacher-librarians completely or went to one part-time teacher-librarian who also covered off the prep time for other teachers or covered off a halftime in a classroom, trying to do, again, a critical job. When you think of a library, you think of the overload of information that comes in now and the importance of teaching our young people to filter through that information, to be able to make the judgment calls when they go on the Net, to be able to decide what is quality information and what isn’t, to be able to start off their career reading and to be able to discover the joy of literature, the joy of books.

We lost many of those incredible teacher-librarians during that time period. We lost, in many schools over that time period, fine arts programs. We lost sports programs. Not extras. These aren’t extra supports in school; these are critical basics of an education system. We also lost a huge number of support staff, because as resources were cut, that’s often where the squeezing came.

That’s the gutting of what is a critical part of our infrastructure of our province and our communities, which is public education. Did the Liberals stop there? Did they stop and decide: “Okay, we shouldn’t have done that. We shouldn’t have torn up that contract. We need to look at how we support our education system”? No. In fact, what we saw was a continued reduction of funding for public education through the downloading of costs by this government.

I think it’s very frustrating to raise these issues, because I’ve seen the government across the way use this as a tool to be able to try and communicate that they’ve put more money into education. “Don’t worry, the budget is larger than it was before.” Well, what they neglect to mention are all the costs that they have downloaded onto school boards. The costs that don’t get covered, that are larger than the money that’s been put into the education budget.

These are not costs that are decided by school boards, that school boards decide to take on and then say: “Gee, I wish we had the resources for them.” These are costs that are determined by the provincial government and then downloaded on to school boards, which are then told that it’s their job to pick up those costs. It’s their job to cover something off. Decided up here by the provincial government, and by the way, there aren’t any resources to be able to manage that.

We saw it with contract costs over the last number of years. We saw a government that set up a process for provincial bargaining, that determined that it made sense to bargain at the provincial level for school boards all around the province. There would be government representatives at the table because government is the one that holds the purse strings. They’re the ones that are controlling the resources, and so therefore, it made sense to have them at the provincial bargaining table.

[1545]

I think there were a number of trustees during that time period who felt that it made good sense. It would make sure that government recognized that if they negotiated the cost of something, those resources needed to come down to the school board. Well, that’s not what we saw and not what we have seen over the last number of years.

We have seen a government that has negotiated costs at a provincial table with government representatives at that table and then not passed the funding along to school boards to cover that. School boards do not have the right to tax. If they are told that something has to be covered, then they have to find the money within the existing budget. What happens when those costs are downloaded? School boards end up having to squeeze their budgets.

That isn’t the only area where we have seen the provincial government download costs. We’ve seen it with an increase in hydro rates. We’ve seen it with an increase in medical service premiums. These are decisions, again, made by government and downloaded onto school boards. School boards are then expected to find and cover those costs.

In the end, it’s the students who lose out. It’s the students who are the ones who end up with less resources, less supports and continued conflict going on, when it should be the years of their lives where they’re discovering all kinds of amazing things.

There are children now who have been in the school system and have known nothing but conflict for their entire education. From kindergarten to grade 12 now, under this government, there are students who, every year, have seen fights, have seen arguments, have seen a government download costs and blame the education system for what’s going on. They’ve seen nothing but scarce resources throughout their education system, for their entire education.

It shouldn’t be that way. It doesn’t have to be that way, and it certainly shouldn’t be that way. From my perspective and, I know, my colleagues’ perspective, there is nothing more important as a resource than our pub-

[ Page 7829 ]

lic education system. There is nothing more important than people who dedicate their lives — everybody from teachers to trustees, support staff to administrators, parents to students — who spend all of their time and energy making sure that our public education system is there for every child.

I truly believe that a public education system should be at the centre of every government’s agenda. It’s often the single common thing in our society that brings us all together, binds us together. Most people have been to school. It’s a common experience that we’ve had. It also provides a foundation for all of us as we go to school — a common foundation of literacy, of numeracy and of our history — social and sciences. It provides an opportunity for critical thinking. It provides all of us with a well-educated, thoughtful citizenry, which again, is a benefit to all of us.

We will not have a healthy democracy without critical thinkers. Where do we create critical thinkers? We create them in the public education system. That’s important for all of us. There’s a great John Dewey quote that talks about democracy: “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” I think it just points out again the important nature of public education and bringing everyone together.

Public education is our opportunity as a society, our obligation as a society, to address inequality. We don’t need another study to be able to remind all of us that a society that invests in education and well-educated citizens is going to be able to reduce inequality. It’ll provide more opportunities for social mobility. We’re going to have a better, well-educated workforce. We’re going to see reductions in crime. We’re going to see reductions in justice costs.

We don’t need another study to remind all of us that investing in education is an investment in our economy. It’s an investment in growth in GDP. We also see the studies, and there are many of them that have come out over the last number of years, that talk about income levels and the amount of money that individuals make as they grow and get into the workforce.

[1550]

Again, it’s been clearly shown that income levels rise proportional to education levels. Investing in education isn’t simply an investment for that child and that family. Investment in education is an investment for all of us.

We know that we live in a global economy. We know that things are very competitive and that we, as a province, need to remain competitive. Well, I would suggest that that won’t happen unless we provide opportunities for all of our citizens to have access to equitable, affordable, quality public education. And I truly believe that that has been eroded over the last number of years by the B.C. Liberals and the downloading of costs and the fight in the system and the huge costs that parents are having now to look at to try and provide that equity for their students.

We know, again, that if we take a look at the jobs of the future, many of those jobs are going to be self-created. We’re going to need entrepreneurs. We’re going to need creative thinkers. We’re going to need inventors. We’re going to need artists. We’re going to need writers. Well, I would say that that doesn’t happen without a strong, quality public education system.

The problems and the challenges of today are complex. There aren’t simplistic, simple, one-area answers to all of the challenges we face. They require problem-solvers. They require the ability to work with others. They require people to be flexible, to be critical thinkers.

If you just take a look at one of the major issues facing us today, the whole issue of sustainability and climate change, we’re going to need bright minds to be able to address that issue, to be able to think differently than we’re thinking now, to be able to look at society in a whole different way and to be able to come up with the ideas and the solutions for what we’re facing. Again, I would say that that happens in the public education system. That’s the place where we bring our young people together. That’s where we give an opportunity for them to work together, to problem-solve, to be critical thinkers.

That’s the strength. So education and quality public education, in my mind, is key to sustainability and key to addressing the problems and the challenges that we face in the future.

We also know that the links between health and quality health and education are also clear. An investment in public education is, again, an investment in a healthy community, because well-educated citizens are able to get better-quality jobs and able to then make better-quality choices around their health.

I think we all know the continued challenges and pressures that we face in the health care system. Well, prevention — making sure that we prevent many of the costs that we see in our health care system — happens in a quality public education system.

The school is the opportunity to bring many of those services together, but not to download those costs on to the education system. I think if you talk to most teachers, if you talk to parents, they’d say to you that it makes good sense to provide, for example, anti-bullying programs in school. It makes good sense to have a great exercise program in our schools. It makes great sense to have meal programs in our schools because that’s the place that children are. That’s, again, the common experience. We’re more likely to have children together at school than we are anywhere else.

But that doesn’t mean that those costs need to be borne by the education system. That means we need to look at working across ministries and providing those services and supports to our young people. We have seen on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth over the last while, as we’ve taken on the issue of youth mental health, people coming to present to the committee talking about the real shortage of support for young people

[ Page 7830 ]

struggling with mental health and the real challenges that that creates for the family, for the community, for the school system.

[1555]

There’s been a common thread running through many of the presentations that have said that the place to be able to provide those services and supports, the place that makes sense, the place that is of comfort to those students, is their school. But does that mean that the school system should cover off all of those costs and all of those pressures when they’ve seen their budgets reduced? No. It means that we need to look at schools and our education system as an investment for all of our futures.

I’m very proud to live in a province that is a multicultural province, where we have people from all parts of the world. It’s a diverse society. It’s a huge strength to us — a huge economic strength to be able to make those connections across the world, a huge cultural strength across the world.

Well, where is the place where we’re able to bring people together of diverse backgrounds, of diverse abilities, to learn to work together, to learn to live together, to learn to support each other, and to see the strengths in each other? That happens in our public schools. You only need to walk into a school these days to see the diverse faces, to see the diverse abilities of students in school.

It’s an amazing thing in our society to have a place where we can teach those kinds of values, where we can value each other, where we can share our cultures, where we can talk about our past, our history, the mistakes made and the strengths we have, and to teach each other from that.

That’s an extraordinary thing in a society. I think we take it for granted, and I think this government has eroded that strength over this last while. In a world of strife and in a world of conflict we can’t underestimate the power of a public school in providing that opportunity for our young people to come together and to learn to live and appreciate and support each other. We need that in our society, and that work happens in public schools, in our public school system.

If you look across government, whether we’re talking about a strong economy, a healthy population, a jobs plan, a multicultural society, prevention of crime, elimination of poverty, strong environmental protection, it doesn’t matter what area of government you take a look at. All of those areas require a strong public education system. They all require a well-educated, caring society, citizens who will be ready for the future. That’s all built in a public education system.

That’s not, sadly, what Bill 11 is about. I wish I could stand here and