Education

For the foreseeable future, it seems likely that British Columbians will have to watch as the decades long dance of dysfunction between the BC Government and the BCTF continues to play out.

The most recent iteration of this is taking place in the Legislature this week as we debate Bill 11 – The Education Statutes Amendment Act.

Sadly, with the introduction of this Bill we’ve missed out on an incredible opportunity for British Columbians to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve our education system.

In introducing Bill 11, yet another opportunity to rebuild the relationship between teachers and government has been squandered. The Bill unilaterally allows government control over the professional development of teachers, and empowers government to issue directives to school boards that they would be bound to follow.

I want to be clear – I welcome a conversation about reforms to our public education system. We need to be willing to discuss controversial topics like re-examining the role school boards play in a modern education system and whether a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts have gone too far.

However, these much needed conversations can only take place when all those involved demonstrate a commitment to their relationship with one another, and actively seek to build mutual trust and understanding. And while Bill 11 is only the most recent example of governments role in damaging this relationship, the BCTF is not without responsibility. Earlier this year the BCTF invited the Leader of the BC NDP to address their 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ended with him calling on everyone to defeat the BC Liberals. This does nothing to build bridges. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide and everyone loses when that happens.

It is easy to forget that amidst all these issues, British Columbia is home to outstanding teachers and a world renowned education system. We should be celebrating our successes and supporting the good work being done by teachers in our province.

Bill 11 is a poorly thought out piece of legislation that deserved a far more rigorous and substantial public consultation so that we could have the conversation about public education that we need. I will not be supporting its passage and will continue to work to establish a different way forward on public education.

A full copy of my remarks can be found below.

Video of Second Reading Speech

Transcript of Second Reading Speech

To begin, I’d like to emphasize that I’ve always believed that teaching is the single most important profession in our society. Each and every one of us has attended school, and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do, and how we contribute to society. So it follows that public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province.

Public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society and to become the leaders of tomorrow.

Teaching is a thoroughly rewarding, yet physically and emotionally exhausting profession. It takes a very special person to be able to instruct a class of 20 to 30 young children for five hours every day. Last year I spent a day engaging every grade from kindergarten to grade six at Savory Elementary’s Four Seasons Eco-School (4EST) program.

I only had one lesson plan to deliver to the seven separate classes, from 8:45 to 2:30 on that day. I had no marking to take home, no report cards to write, no parents to interact with, no staff meetings and no administrative activities. Nor did I have to take the students on extracurricular activities. But let me tell you that I was exhausted at the end of the day. And I only did that once, not day in, day out, for months on end.

Let me start my speech by noting that we have outstanding teachers and an exceptional education system in the province of British Columbia. Every three years the Programme for International Student Assessment, known as PISA, evaluates the performance of students internationally in three subject areas: mathematics, science and reading.

The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada further breaks down the Canadian results on a province-by-province basis. British Columbia consistently performs extremely well. In 2012, for example, British Columbia was the top Canadian province in reading and science and was second only to Quebec in mathematics.

In fact, British Columbia students even performed better than students from the much-touted education system in Finland in both reading and mathematics. And while Finland scored slightly ahead of B.C. in science, the difference was statistically insignificant. Of course, we’ll have to wait until December 2016 to get the PISA 2015 results to see how British Columbia continues to fare.

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

At the end of the strike last fall the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.” Rather than viewing this as five years of simmering anger waiting to boil over when the negotiations next begin, we should be capitalizing on this time to envision bold new ways of ensuring our educational system is sustainable.

This includes teachers being fairly compensated and adequately supported with properly funded curriculum and learning resources. Such support must include sincere and meaningful class size and composition discussions and support that recognizes that teacher burnout affects us all. It must include reinvigorating our educational infrastructure and ensuring that children have textbooks and access to learning materials.

On Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its decision concerning the rights of teachers to negotiate conditions around class size and composition. Rather than allowing this to serve as a catalyst to incite increased tension between the BCTF and the government, perhaps both parties will recognize the opportunities that will arise from mutual collaboration, no matter what the Court of Appeals decision is.

For example, perhaps there is a compromise on class size and composition negotiations. Why don’t the BCTF and the B.C. government both agree, for example, that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level?

In fact, as noted in the book Worlds Apart: British Columbia Schools, Politics and Labour Relations Before and After 1972 by Thomas Fleming, the BCTF was not pleased with the 1994 Public Education Labour Relations Act which led to the formation of BCPSEA and the BCTF being appointed as the official bargainer for all teachers.

Provincial data clearly show that one size does not fit all. The class-size and composition needs of Haida Gwaii school district 50 are almost certainly different from those in the Gulf Islands, No. 64, or Surrey, school district 36.

Perhaps both parties would consider waiving the right to strike in favour of binding arbitration with respect to salary and benefit negotiations. In 1950 Manitoba teachers did just this. In return, they gained binding arbitration, due process and a provincial certification board. There has been labour peace in Manitoba ever since.

Binding arbitration forces each party to come up with their best offer. The arbitrator then chooses from one of them or some combination of both. One thing is certain. Outlandish requests are taken off the table quickly when binding arbitration is in play.

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

But moving this relationship forward requires trust, mutual trust. It’s easy for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education are leery to trust the direction this government is taking in Bill 11. This bill is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government is providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Nobody knows what the minister has in mind or what cabinet will do with these powers, should this law receive royal assent.

Bill 11 repeals the concept of school planning councils. Frankly, I support moving back to focusing the parent’s role in the parent advisory councils. The B.C. Liberals school planning council model was a failed approach to school-based governance, introduced when our current Premier was the Minister of Education.

I doubt that there will be much public outcry over this, although it would have been preferable to give the public more opportunity for input prior to actually putting this legislation forward. After all, this is public education that we are discussing here today.

Bill 11 takes the very provocative and, honestly, I think, ill-thought-out position of empowering the minister to set teachers’ professional development requirements. Like any profession, teachers require ongoing professional development. That goes without saying. But like these same professions, professional development must be led by the experts. In this case it’s by the teachers, not by ministerial decree.

Now, I recognize that the minister will say and respond that he wants to negotiate with the BCTF as to what this professional development might look like. However, my reply to the minister on this is that he’s lost trust. He’s lost the trust of the teachers, as what the minister had in mind should have been conveyed prior to, rather than after, this legislation being tabled.

Besides, what body would oversee the professional development? The B.C. College of Teachers would have been the natural place, but it’s been disbanded. The BCTF is a union tasked with representing its members in negotiations, not in maintaining professional standards. So they are not the appropriate home for such professional ongoing professional development.

The teacher regulation branch doesn’t seem the right place either. So what does the minister have in mind? We simply don’t know, and therein lies the problem. Why are we bringing forward legislation to discuss this when we do not know what the minister has in mind and when trust has been broken and lost with negotiations on this topic with the teachers before we’ve even started to discuss it?

It’s clear to me that this bill was not ready for debate in the Legislature. In my view, it should have followed the lead of the Society Act or the Water Sustainability Act and allowed extensive public consultation prior to its introduction, rather than afterwards.

Both of those pieces of legislation obtained a social licence, public support. In the case of the Society Act, public input led to a better act, with the removal of section 99. But here we do not have public support. We’ve just come off a prolonged strike, and on Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its long-awaited decision.

What an incredible opportunity this could be for British Columbians to be offered to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve our education system.

Instead of discussing this ill-thought-out legislation whose direction is not actually brought forward with any substance today for us to speak to, we could have had a discussion about education. For example, we could have had a discussion about education funding.

The level of funding allocated to our public education system depends on the priorities of the government. In British Columbia spending on health care has remained a priority since 2000, ranging between 7 percent and 8 percent of provincial GDP. Funding for social services and education expressed as a percentage of GDP, on the other hand, has dropped over this period of time.

In the case of education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP, it has declined from a high of about 6.4 percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took office first, to an estimated low of about 5 percent in 2014-2015. Now, that’s a 22 percent decline in the percentage of funding, as a percentage of GDP, being spent on education in our province.

If British Columbians deem education to be as important as I do, surely this drop needs to be rectified. So the question is: where does this money come from? I would argue that British Columbians need to have a hard look at our sources of provincial revenue and the way we spend the money that government receives. Given a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts, perhaps it’s time to take a look at whether or not we’ve gone too far.

That’s an important discussion to have, as it ultimately affects the availability of funds for our public education system. That’s a discussion we could have had prior to the introduction of Bill 11. With increases in public school enrolment looming, it’s critical that we initiate this discussion now, not later, not tomorrow, not after the next settlement is in negotiation with the teachers in our province.

We could have had a discussion about the ongoing role of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. The BCPSEA was established in 1994. Since that time there has been a continued escalation of conflict between the BCTF and the government via BCPSEA. Perhaps it’s time to consider dismantling BCPSEA and, instead, bringing its operations directly into the Ministry of Education. This would signal that government is willing to start afresh to try and build a new relationship with teachers. After all, it’s the government, not BCPSEA, that holds the purse strings.

We could have engaged in a discussion about the role of school boards in our public education system. Thomas Fleming, in his aforementioned book, noted:

“A history of extremely low voter turnout in school board elections, along with the influence of teacher associations over electoral candidates, has raised serious questions about whether boards in fact actually reflect the public’s educational will or simply serve as a platform for the expression of various special interests — all insistent on greater school spending, regardless of other legitimate public demands government is obligated to consider.”

That quote comes from page 109.

He further points out that only between 5 percent and 10 percent of eligible voters turn up at a school board election not occurring at the same time as municipal elections. In addition, he detailed a by-election in the capital regional district that brought out around only 2 percent of the electorate.

The mandate of school boards has changed over the last century. In the early 20th century local school boards were tasked with hiring the teacher for their often one-room schoolhouse in rural areas, for example, and ensuring that the school was kept up. Provincial inspectors toured the province to make sure that centrally determined educational standards were maintained.

In an extremely influential report authored by Max Cameron in 1946, sweeping changes were proposed to the previously existing model of public school governance. Increased financial efficiency and equitable educational opportunities for all rural and urban British Columbian students required a new approach.

In 1944 there were 650 school districts governed by 437 school boards. Just three years later only 89 school districts remained, and by 1971 this was down to 74. Today there are 60 school districts. Is that the right number? Should their mandate be changed? These are questions the public should have had a chance to discuss and become engaged on discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

We could have engaged in a discussion about whether British Columbians want to follow the New Zealand model, where school boards were eliminated in their entirety, or the Finnish model, where school districts are aligned more closely and intimately with local municipalities for funding, or some other variant.

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

Rather than perpetuate the boom-and-bust cycle of teacher training and hiring and rather than keeping people for many years on the teacher-on-call list, perhaps a more gradual transition to full-time employment could have been developed. Perhaps we could be discussing this as many of the things in our education system that we could and should have been discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

For example, teacher burnout early on in one’s career is not uncommon. We all know an example of a teacher or two who taught for a few years and moved on, as the requirements placed upon them are simply unbearable, given the support that is lacking at their early age of entry into the teaching profession.

A young teacher might be thrown into a new situation, with multiple class preparations for a range of students with a diversity of skills and backgrounds, with no past teaching material practices to draw upon. New teachers can quickly become overwhelmed with workload. Senior teachers, on the other hand, approaching retirement have a wealth of experience, curriculum resources and best practices. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate a buddy system, where a retiring teacher signs an agreement to retire gradually over, say, a three-year period, and during that time the starting teacher is paired with the retiring teacher. While the senior teacher gently eases into retirement, the new teacher gently eases into full-time teaching, and the decades of experiences and best practices are passed along from the senior to the junior teacher.

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

Bill 11 enables the minister to step in, but again, it would have been preferable to open the bill up first for public and stakeholder input prior to tabling it in this House.

Now, those ideas that I’ve put forward are not any ones that I’m advocating for particularly, or any at all. I’m simply introducing them and putting out these ideas in the hope that they provoke a discussion, a discussion about how public education should evolve in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the approach to educational policy change in the province of British Columbia is viewed by many — by parents, by teachers, by others — in the province as heavy-handed and top down.

Building a social licence for change requires uncomfortable topics to be discussed and new ideas also to be discussed. Sadly, rather than introducing this legislation after such discussions were conducted and concluded, the legislation was brought forward prematurely, and in doing so government sends the wrong message to teachers.

It sends a message that suggests the heavy handed, top-down, rather than collaborative, approach to educational reform is the direction this government is heading.

But please let me reiterate. The status quo between the government and the BCTF cannot continue. The politicization of our public education system serves no constructive purpose. We have outstanding and dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia. We have a very educated workforce, and we can use it to attract business to our province, as we offer something no one else in the world has — bountiful natural resources and the most beautiful place on earth as our backyard.

Now, the politicization of our public education system is not just the fault of the government. When the BCTF invites the leader of the B.C. NDP to address the 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ends with him calling on everyone to defeat the B.C. Liberals, which he referred to as “those buggers,” this does nothing to build bridges between teachers and government. It does nothing to build trust in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide, and everybody loses when that happens. Our children lose, their teachers lose and the parents of those children also lose when public education in the province of British Columbia becomes partisan.

Let’s step back. Let’s let this bill die on the order paper and reintroduce it next year, once a more thorough consultation process has occurred. Let’s get it right, so that we can start rebuilding trust between teachers and government in British Columbia.

Media Statement: April 23, 2015
Andrew Weaver Welcoming Appointment of Sherri Bell as Camosun College President
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green party welcomes the appointment of Ms. Sherri Bell as the new President of Camosun College. Ms. Bell has served as the Superintendent of School District 61 since March of 2014 following the retirement of John Gaiptman, She brings a wealth of experience to her new position from both the K-12 and post-secondary levels including time as principal in Lake Cowichan and James Bay Community School in Victoria, and as an instructor and practicum supervisor at the University of Victoria. Since 2001 she has worked in administration in the Greater Victoria district.

“This is tremendous news for Camosun College and the Greater Victoria community” said Andrew Weaver. “Sherri Bell is an outstanding and inspirational educator and administrator. Her professional achievements and experience will be a fabulous asset supporting the extraordinary work of the students, staff and faculty at Camosun and I congratulate Sherri on what really is a distinguished appointment”

Sherri Bell will be taking over from interim President Peter Lockie.

-30-

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

Over the last two days, we have been debating Bill 7, Private Training Act, in the legislature. This bill replaces the Private Career Training Institutions Act, dissolves the Private Career Training Institutions Agency (PCTIA), and transfers its authorities and functions to the Ministry of Advanced Education. Closing the agency and transferring its functions to the Ministry of Advanced Education will save about $1.5 million over three years and moves British Columbia in line with how other provinces handle private career institutions.

Last April, the BC government dissolved the PCTIA, the organization that regulated private career colleges. This decision came after complaints about administrative fairness and enforcement of educational standards. A month after this decision was made, BC’s Office of the Ombudsperson also announced it would be launching a probe into the Agency.

On March 9, the Office of the Ombudsperson issued a Media Advisory indicating that its In the Public Interest: Protecting Students through Effective Oversight of Private Career Training Institutions would be made public following it being tabled in the legislature on Wednesday, March 11, at approximately 2:30 p.m. Today, we received an additional Media Advisory indicating that the report would not be tabled today and its public release would be postponed until further notice.

As you might imagine, this puts opposition MLAs in a very frustrating position as we were again discussing Bill 7 today in the absence of critical information that would inform us in our deliberations. As you will see from the discussion below, yesterday I rose on a point of order (but was overruled) asking that further deliberations of Bill 7 at Committee stage be delayed until such time as the Ombudsperson’s report was tabled.

In principle, Bill 7 is well intentioned. Unfortunately, it is incomplete and I spoke to the bill extensively yesterday in an attempt to offer means and ways of improving it. As evident in the relevant transcript of the proceedings (which I reproduce below), in my view there is a significant problem with the way Bill 7 regulates private language education schools. This legislation does not regulate the entire private language education sector. It only regulates those who voluntarily agree to actually seek registration. Those who choose not to register are not regulated. Paradoxically, in an attempt to protect students, those schools that voluntarily register and in so doing choose to meet higher standards are penalized with additional costs and administration. Those schools that choose not to register are not regulated and there is no additional protection for students, which is what this bill was supposed to do.

During the committee stage I offered an amendment to exclude private language education institutions from Bill 7 with the understanding that they would be regulated through the introduction of a future bill. The amendment was defeated.

Hansard Transcript of Deliberations

A. Weaver: I, too, share the concerns of the previous member speaking to this with respect to private language education. In reading through the definitions, I have some trouble with the definitions of “career training institution” and “career training program.”

My question to the minister is: does the minister see career training to mean and include private international language education schools, which are not actually providing career training but, rather, language education for foreigners? I’ll follow up with a quick question after that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: On reviewing those definitions of “career training institution” and “career training program,” those definitions are directed at the “program of instruction” definition above — “(a) enhancing the student’s employability in a career occupation, or (b) improving the student’s ability to carry out a career occupation.”

That is not specifically addressing the language skill issue, which is captured in section 5 of the act. It provides that “an institution that is not required to hold a certificate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certificate or” — what they seek for federal approval for student visas — “a designation certificate.” They cannot get the federal visa status without the designation certificate.

A. Weaver: To give a personal story that might help where I’m coming from with respect to my concern over what, I would argue, is the absence of reflection upon some of the value-added that private language schools are bringing to our province, is that one of my constituents is the owner of Stewart College here in Victoria. It’s a fully accredited — voluntarily so — private language school here that has 175 host families in the greater Victoria region.

The opportunities that this school brings for international students is profound. There are 175 host families, who generate income from the students staying with them. The tourism sector in Victoria benefits from these students coming to our region. These students spend money. A third of their money is on tuition; two-thirds of their money is on other things.

The international language education is more than just tuition, which is my concern with respect to this bill as we move forward with these definitions and how they play out for private language education. This school provides a substantial economic boost to the greater Victoria area, and it is but one. There are many, many other such schools in the province of British Columbia.

My concern is that while it’s laudable and I applaud the efforts to actually protect students from perhaps fly-by-night organizations, my real worry is that the baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater in doing this.

So my question to the minister is this. Is it possible, in light of the fact that we’ll almost certainly be discussing this bill for the rest of the day and perhaps much of tomorrow, to reflect upon the definitions, to recognize that perhaps something specific should be added into the definitions to deal with private language schools or exempt private language schools from the present bill so that more time could be put in to reflect how these non-career-training institutions will be better regulated under legislation that actually reflects the value-added that they provide to our economy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member, of course, alludes to this balance I referred to earlier between those that seek to improve their quality of profile, enhance their credibility, improve their marketability and appeal to the international student market and thereby be looking for a federal student visa designation, which requires them to be compliant with the act and to be designated institutions. That introduces a certain compliance obligation, which will be limited over time, for those who are compliant and have a good track record.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, we look to have a light regulatory and compliance burden placed on those small institutions that perhaps are doing some less sophisticated training in a smaller venue.

The organization that the member refers to, having 175 homestay families in British Columbia, one would suspect that they are in the former category of the high-quality institution with the big reputation and a history of performance. That, of course, applies not only to the training in language but also to the selection and management of those homestay relationships.

I think the overview is that the organization the member refers to has very little to be concerned about with this legislation, because if they are big enough to be designated now, they will carry on in a very similar fashion under the legislation as they did formerly.

A. Weaver: I’d like to build on an answer that the minister gave me with respect to my question regarding the definitions of “career training” and “career training program” and his referring of me to section 5, which we will discuss later, of course. The question I have is…. My understanding, first off, is that the British Columbia government has entered into and signed a memorandum of understanding with Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to visa requirements and tracking those who are given a visa to come to an eligible institution. First off, may I ask if that is a correct understanding?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is an agreement between the provinces writ large and Citizenship and Immigration Canada as to the standard that will be applied at the provincial level to those language schools that seek to have eligibility for student visas.

A. Weaver: Coming back to the point raised by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, visa requirements are different depending on which country you come from. You may come from Taiwan, for example, and not need a visa to go and study in a school. You may come from another country and require a visa. You may be on a visitor’s permit and, as such, be allowed to study up to six months.

Coming back to the reason why I’m seeking clarification with respect to the definition of “career training program,” these private language schools provide critical training — not so much career training but language training — for international students wanting to better their skills in English. The concern here is that, if as the minister pointed out, by not having a specific definition for “private language education” someone is directed to section 5….

It says an “institution that is not required to hold a certificate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certificate.” This is making the whole private language sector in some sense voluntary. Now, a student could get a visa to come and train at a voluntarily registered private language institute. They could be with that institute for, say, two weeks and then move to a non-registered private language school.

Now, the reality here is that this does nothing to protect the students from fly-by-night organizations. All it’s doing is protecting the students at entry point to a registered school, but they can immediately move to another school. I would argue that, in so doing, the MOU that the British Columbia government has signed — or has along with other provinces, signed with Citizen and Immigration Canada — cannot actually be enforced because the government will have no control as to where a student actually ends up having their private language education, because it’s only at the entry point that the visa requirement is there.

What this does, without specifically defining private language schools in the definitions and treating them separately, is it gives a loophole and actually penalizes those who actually want to voluntarily register, those who in doing so must then put aside moneys to protect students — which I agree with in general. It’s a good idea to protect students. But the students will come in….

Those institutions that have spent the money to register voluntarily, put money aside — as per this legislation — can be the entry point for a student, but they don’t have to be the final point for a student. They could be a transition point for a student. This is why it’s so critical, I would argue, to put in the definitions and treat separately private language schools — not through voluntary regulation under section 5.

My question, then, back to the minister again and another time is: is it possible for the minister to reconsider, over the course of the night, the potential for adding an exclusion or adding in a different definition for private language schools that does not treat them as a throwaway into section 5, along with schools like massage therapy and other things as well?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To address the member’s concern, as I understand it, the federal student visas are school-specific. So if the student arrives at school X and decides after two weeks they would rather go skiing or perhaps go to a cheaper school or something of the sort, their visa becomes void. That is the mechanism by which this regime is managed in concert with the federal government.

A. Weaver: Will that remain the same if this bill were to pass or not? Is that something that’s occurring now or has been in the past. Will it continue to be so in the future?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, working with the federal government, we anticipate continuity, but we cannot tell them what to do with their legislative regime or their visa regime. But the status quo is expected to continue into the future in terms of that federal-provincial agreement, because as I say, it’s not just with British Columbia.

If I can answer the quantitative question from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that she raised earlier, Mr. Chair, there are 124 language schools on the federal immigrant student program…. Sorry, there are 124 language schools on the provincial list that are eligible for federal student visas.

I’m being corrected repeatedly here, because the note is not very clear. There are 124 schools on the ISP list with the federal government giving them visa eligibility, and 59 of them are language schools.

A. Weaver: Coming back to my…. I know I’m belabouring this point, but as you can see from the numerous members here, there’s some profound concern about the application of this legislation to private language schools in particular, in light of the fact that they’re not mentioned specifically in the bill — in the definition in particular, what we’re discussing right now.

My understanding is that in fact Citizenship and Immigration Canada does not yet track students upon entry into Canada. They are planning to do so, my understanding is, this year. However, my understanding is that they will be relying on the designate school, upon receipt, to actually provide information to CIC with respect to the date of entry and date of leaving.

Now, my understanding there is that, again, there is nothing to stop a person coming to Canada to a designated school and two days later moving to another school. That person is lost in the system. That person can attend another school with a valid visa that could be shown. It seems to me that unless we treat all such private language schools as requiring registration, then they’ll be lost.

This actually might encourage those to actually come with a visa for an accredited registered language institution and then move to some quick, fly-by-night organization. They head back to their country after they get their training, but there’s no record of them.

This bill does not protect the student. It actually penalizes the private language institution that must put aside money, etc., and spend the cost of registering. But that fly-by-night organization, which is not required to register, is not really tracked, and hence, the student is not tracked in the system.

Back to the minister again. Will the minister consider protecting our vibrant, solid, well-established private language school industry in British Columbia, catering to a very large market in the Asia-Pacific, by ensuring that all private language schools are required to register, or failing that, putting in a specific definition here to exclude private language schools from this act until such time as consultation on that particular sector can occur in greater detail?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There seem to be a number of issues there, which I’ll try to unravel. First of all, the majority if not all of these designated language schools that provide the eligibility for a student visa require payment in advance. So presumably, the student then arrives in Canada. They may not arrive directly in British Columbia. They may take a few weeks to get here. They then show up for their course, and they have paid in advance. They will then engage in their course.

If they decide to quit the course, that is a federal issue, that they have then violated the terms of their visa. We do not engage in immigration enforcement issues in this government. That is exclusively federal jurisdiction.

If that student, as the model suggests, were to quit the school that they had paid tuition to after a few days — which is hard to comprehend why they would do that — and go to another school, they would lose the tuition they had paid to school A, pay tuition again at school B and face deportation for violating the terms of their visa. That paradigm seems to be flawed.

I think the member’s question is more specifically directed at the definition section of the act. Our goal with this act is to capture those institutions that do lead to eligibility for federal student visas so that the federal regime will be invoked, and we will protect the reputation of our schools and our programs by not allowing them access to federal student visas unless they are designated and have met the designation criteria here in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Not to be argumentative, but as I pointed out earlier, in fact, you don’t have to have a student visa from many countries to actually study in this country, Taiwan being an example. You can come here from Taiwan and study. You only need a student visa, in my understanding, in most cases if it’s for longer than six months.

This does not protect those institutions that have spent a lot of time building their credibility, their reputation, putting British Columbia on the map as a go-to place for private language instruction from the fly-by-night organizations that don’t have to register. Those accredited schools, those registered schools, have extra burden put on them, and those not-registered schools get to benefit from the reputation put on them.

Again, to the minister, will he consider putting in a definition to specifically define private language schools in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We seem to be dealing with apples and oranges here, mixed metaphors. If a student comes from the European Union, anywhere in the European Union, to a language school in British Columbia, they don’t need a visa. They have a lengthy stay period. They can go skiing. They can pick apples in the Okanagan. They can go to language school for a while. They will pay their tuition to the language school up front.

It begs the question: why would they go to language school A, change their mind after three or four days, as the member suggests, go to language school B and pay twice for the same product when they can come and go from Canada as they please?

A. Weaver: In fact, I was pointing in this case…. The last question was with respect to people who didn’t need a visa. They could come from Taiwan, say, and go to school B that is nonregistered. They’re not protected. They don’t require a visa because they’re not here for an extended period of time. They can just enter the language school.

My question to the minister. Why would the minister not want to regulate all private language schools instead of only those certain components of them that voluntarily choose to register? This is not protecting students, international foreign language students, because students from some countries can come to B.C. and register into a language school without a visa. It can happen today.

Some of the schools that they’re going to are going to be protected. They’ll be protected because they’re registered. Others won’t be. Those that are not registered, by and large, probably don’t have the same reputation — not in its entirety — as those who have spent the time and money to build that reputation. They’re benefiting from the established reputation of our vibrant private language education sector in B.C.

My question to the minister. Why does the minister not want to protect all international students and only just those coming specifically on a student visa — as opposed to visitors, or from those countries that don’t require a student visa to actually attend private language schools here in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise here is finding the balance between a light regulatory burden on schools that do not require government intervention — the living-room classes in Spanish or in English, for that matter, that are conducted informally, that require no regulation that we’re aware of — and the other alternative on the other end of the spectrum: schools that seek the endorsement of the state, schools that seek to have on their website and in their materials the demonstration that they have met federal student visa qualifications and thereby, as a prerequisite, have met the standards to be designated provincially. Those are major selling points for any school.

In order to have those criteria applied to them and be eligible under those terms, the schools need to meet some regulatory standards because they’re asking for the endorsement of the state, both federal and provincial. That is what this regime does.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order.

In light of the issue that was brought to us momentarily ago by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, that the Ombudsperson’s report is being released tomorrow, it behooves this chamber and MLAs within to hear the results of this report — this report that’s been in the works for quite some time — prior to debating this bill.

We checked with the Clerk’s office earlier today to see whether or not such a point of order would be in order — to actually raise it. Obviously, I can’t determine what the result is. But we have not as a House, as a chamber, got the information before us that we as a chamber need in order to debate and discuss the merits of this bill further. That will be available to us in this chamber tomorrow, after the Ombudsperson’s report is released.

There is no reason for us to be debating this in committee today. The reason this is happening today, I don’t know. But we have several weeks to go in this sitting of the Legislature. We can debate this and examine this more closely in committee stage once we have the information provided to us by the Ombudsman’s report.

With that, I leave it to your fine judgment, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, the point of order is not acceptable. It doesn’t qualify under the usage of the standing orders.

A. Weaver: Coming back to the definition of “excluded institution.” This was canvassed very thoroughly by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. I do have an amendment I wish to add here, hon. Chair, in light of the fact that, as we’ve had a great amount of discussion concerning private language education institutions and the fact that both the organizations representing them, as well as the members on this side of the House, have grave concerns about this particular bill and its potential handling of these private language education institutions.

The amendment that I bring forward is under “excluded institution.”

[By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 1 – Definitions

“excluded institution” means any of the following

(n) a private language education institution]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Proceed, Member. Do you have anything further?

Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We do not support this amendment. So perhaps there should be debate on the amendment. We’d be interested in hearing what the member opposite has to say, and I suppose it’ll proceed to a vote.

A. Weaver: It’s unusual not to debate a motion more thoroughly. I, of course, brought this amendment forward in light of the fact that there have been a number of questions with respect to private language education institutions not being listed in the definitions and so falling under section 5 of the act. Then the questions arose as to the fact that only some language education institutions would have to register. Others would not have to. The visa issue is complex, because some students require student visas and some don’t, depending how long you’re here, what country you’re from.

The fact here is that this legislation does not regulate the entire private language education sector. It only regulates those who voluntarily agree to actually seek registration. So it’s punitive, one might argue, to those who actually want to live by the so-called law of the land and meet higher standards — punitive in that it requires them to create funds through tuition funds, etc., to protect students. We’re all for protecting students, but others can get away with it.

I think that if we’re going to move forward, at a minimum, while there are other issues with the bill, we need to actually pull apart private language institutions from this bill and take more time to more thoughtfully come up with means and ways of providing legislation that actually will deal with the regulation of the private language sector.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment proposed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Amendment negatived on division.

On Tuesday I rose to speak at second reading on Bill 5 – Government Information Act.

Bill 5 would create new digital archives and eventually make it mandatory for ministries to keep most records electronically. These digital archives will be open to the public and searchable online. The legislation also creates a new chief records officer position, responsible for overseeing retention, digitization and archiving of government information. This position would oversee the transition from the current paper-based archiving system to the new digital platform – proposed to begin this spring and last about three years.

It is argued that digital archives will better preserve the province’s heritage while allowing people to search and retrieve historical information from anywhere in the world.

If approved, this new legislation will replace the Document Disposal Act, which was enacted in 1936 and viewed as out of date.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

This bill before us, in my view, is a step in the right direction for how we manage government records in British Columbia. I do understand that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan does plan to, either himself or someone else from the official opposition, introduce duty-to-document legislation. I recognize that’s not the discussion of this bill here, but I believe that that is an important step to be coupled in with this legislation as it is brought into this chamber.

It is important not only to document digitally but have a duty to do such documentation. So in this regard, I very much look forward to seeing the official opposition’s bill in this area.

Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C., has written a rather detailed letter concerning recommendations for this bill. I find her comments on this legislation to be a rather huge public service, things that I truly believe are important to reflect upon as they help shine light on the best practices concerning government information.

Before I highlight some of her recommendations, perhaps I could read a couple of sentences from her introduction in the letter. This what she said:

“Information rights are of vital importance to citizens. Access to government information and to an individual’s own personal information are essential elements of a transparent and accountable democracy. The rights of citizens to control and access information and records is regulated by a carefully balanced legal framework that guarantees these rights, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions.”

These are profound words, profound words that I think we should reflect upon as we move to committee stage. The passage is critical because it frames how we must approach any legislation that impacts government information — that is to say, with an eye to ensuring transparency and accountability.

In general, I’ll have two broad areas of inquiry that I hope to explore in committee stage. The first of these is the question: why does this bill not firmly establish independent oversight for the information management systems? The second: why does it not address the massive backlog in records that currently exists?

I think that if the purpose of this bill is to update how government manages records and information, ensuring that their approach is modernized, then both of these issues will be critical to address as we move forward. Government records, whether of historical value or information sought through information requests, should be managed under the eye of an independent office that can ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are protected.

I look forward to committee stage and further deliberations on this bill in the days ahead

Today in the legislature I offered a new vision for British Columbia in my response to the Speech from the Throne.

It is clear from the Throne Speech and the NDP’s amendment, that we are lacking leadership and vision in the legislature. We have a government completely out of ideas and an Official Opposition that is more focused on pointing out the government’s failures than offering viable solutions.

In my speech, I laid out my vision for a diversified, sustainable, 21st century economy, in contrast to the Liberal government’s preoccupation with the elusive LNG industry. In offering my vision, I highlighted the importance of prioritizing affordability, health care, education and environmental regulation.

I presented evidence-based options to improve MSP, advance the cleantech and other sectors, bolster environmental regulation, and help B.C. teachers. I offered my ideas as a first step towards solving a large number of the province’s growing challenges.

In my view it is disrespectful to deliver a Speech from the Throne to British Columbians completely void of ideas when so many people are struggling to get by and when so many solutions exist. At the same time, opposition has to be more than standing on the sidelines and lobbing dirt at the government. I hope the ideas that I put forward can assist us move towards developing lasting solutions to the problems and challenges facing British Columbians.

Below is the text of my speech. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Preamble

Honourable speaker, last week as I sat through the throne speech it became apparent to me that this government is now without a vision, at a loss for new ideas and completely struggling for a new direction. Their promise of wealth and prosperity for one and all through an LNG message of hope wrapped in hyperbole has not materialized.

Honourable speaker, last year at this time, during the speech from the throne to open the 2^nd session of this parliament, the government mentioned LNG ten times. LNG was mentioned only eight times in last fall’s throne speech and now, at the opening of the 4^th session, we only find passing reference to LNG five times.

But here’s what’s different Honourable Speaker. In those two previous speeches the word ‘diverse’ was not used a single time. Now, as the government attempts to downplay their irresponsible LNG promises they’ve introduced reference to a diverse economy, sectors or resources eight times!

Honourable speaker, you will recall that for two years now I have been saying the same thing. The economics did not and still does not support the government’s reckless LNG promises in a market oversupplied with natural gas and in a jurisdiction that is years behind others in terms of developing an LNG industry. I’ve stood alone in this house repeatedly attempting to steer the government on a more sustainable path.

Last fall, I went so far as to propose an amendment to the throne speech by including the words:

And that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia accepts the responsibility of demonstrating the leadership to choose growth, to move forward and create a legacy for our children, but also recognizes that this leadership means not gambling our future prosperity on a hypothetical windfall from LNG, and instead supports the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

In light of the new direction this government is struggling to find, I find it profoundly ironic that they voted against my amendment. What’s even more remarkable is so did the official opposition.

Today, in this chamber, I will offer British Columbians an alternate vision for the future of British Columbia — A vision that is grounded in evidence and at all times puts the interests of British Columbians first.

Introduction

It has been nearly two years since I decided to run for office.

When I made that decision, I did so because I saw an opportunity.

I had spent years studying the possibilities that are available to those societies who are first to act boldly in transitioning to a low carbon economy. In my classes, I would cite statistics, like how in the United States in 2011, green jobs grew at four times the rate of all other sectors combined. Or how between 2007 and 2010, the global market for environmental technology and resource efficiency expanded at an average rate of 11.8 percent per annum.

I advised governments at all levels on the policies they could take at the time to seize those opportunities. And I saw British Columbia begin to show leadership in doing just that.

But as the government then shifted all of its efforts, and all of its hopes, to the LNG pipedream, I saw us lose that leadership. I watched as we went from leaders in developing a 21st Century economy, to laggards, scurrying back to the 20th century, hoping for an out-dated and unrealistic LNG windfall.

As I watched that leadership unravel, I was reminded of something I would tell my students. If you want your government to show leadership on the issues you care about, I would tell them, you need to elect people who will act on your concerns. Or, if you feel like none of the candidates is seriously addressing the issues you are worried about, you should run for office yourself.

Ultimately, I decided that it was time to take my own advice. I ran for office because I saw an opportunity to use my role as an MLA to help build a vision that would put our province on a path to develop a 21st Century economy. Now, after nearly two years, I feel this is more important than ever.

In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs new leadership.

Leadership that offers a vision for how to make peoples’ lives better.

Leadership that pushes boldly forward when no one else will, because they see the opportunities — economically, socially and environmentally — to be the first to end homelessness, the first to act on climate change and the first to transition to a 21st century economy.

Leadership that’s willing to be a lightning rod in the legislature, when that’s what’s necessary, and to advance reasonable, common sense ideas that can help address British Columbians’ pressing concerns.

Leadership doesn’t wait for public opinion — it builds it.

If there is one clear message from the Throne Speech it’s that this legislature has lost its leadership. And British Columbians are paying the price.

We have a government that is out of ideas and an Official Opposition that is bent on criticism when, more than ever, what we need is vision and an honest conversation about the challenges we face and the solutions available to address them.

We have built a political culture that puts personal ego, political games and partisan rhetoric ahead of the most important obligation we as elected representatives have: To provide leadership and direction to move British Columbia forward. We have been tasked with addressing the greatest challenges of our time — not adding to them.

Yet, too often the pursuit of narrow self interest trumps the interests of British Columbians. This is because most of us in this room will not have to live with the long-term consequences of the decisions that we make.

We have to do better. And doing better starts with a basic willingness to work across party lines.

I have always said that I will support a good idea when I see it, I will contribute to a poor idea when I can help make it better and I will oppose a bad idea when that’s what’s necessary.

But steadfast opposition is a last resort. Our challenges are too big, and the consequences are too profound. Opposition has to be more than standing on the sidelines and lobbing dirt until the government is buried and broken. There’s no vision—no leadership—in slinging mud. We don’t have to agree, but we do need to have honest discussions that extend beyond partisan squabbles. And we need to demonstrate the respect we expect to receive towards our ideas, when we consider the ideas of others.

We expect more from government. We expect a demonstrated commitment to govern for all British Columbians —not merely for those who voted for them—or funded them. This means an honest and open commitment to seek out the perspectives and ideas of others and evaluate them based on their merits, not on their source. It is disrespectful of British Columbians to be presented with a throne speech completely void of ideas when so many people are struggling to get by and when so many solutions exist. It speaks to the lack of leadership in this government that they did not do more to actively seek out and try to incorporate the ideas of others —particularly when they were so lacking on ideas themselves.

We have to do better. Being an MLA — whether in opposition or in government — has to be about more than partisan squabbles and staying in power.

I find myself between two parties, each of which has institutionalized disrespect for the ideas, and in some cases the existence, of the other. We must return to debating the challenges facing our province — including those that began under an NDP government, those that began under a Liberal government, and those that began before either was ever in power. Let us now demonstrate the leadership that British Columbians expect of us and begin to discuss concrete ideas that, by working together, we can turn into the solutions we need to the challenges we face.

21st Century Economy

Let’s start with the economy.

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia to be at the cutting edge in the development of a 21st century economy.

Our high quality of life and beautiful natural environment attract some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world. And we have incredible potential to create clean, renewable energy sectors to sustain our growing economy. When we speak about developing a 21st century economy — one that is innovative, resilient, diverse, and sustainable — these are unique strengths we should be leveraging.

Unfortunately, instead of investing in a 21st Century economy, our government has banked all its hopes on an irresponsible, unrealistic fossil fuel windfall, with its Liquefied Natural Gas sector. We are already seeing these promises unravel. I’ve been saying this was inevitable for more than 2 years. Now more than ever, we have an urgency to invest in a 21st century economy, so B.C. can continue to prosper. Here’s where we could start:

A 21st Century economy is sustainable — environmentally, socially and financially. We should be investing in up-and-coming sectors like the clean tech sector that create well-paying, long-term, local jobs and that grow our economy without sacrificing our environment.

Similarly, by steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivises innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy. The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

By investing in the replacement of aging infrastructure in communities throughout the province we stimulate local economies and create jobs. By moving to this polluter-pays model of revenue generation for municipalities, we reduce the burden on regressive property taxes. Done right, this model would lead to municipalities actually reducing property taxes, thereby benefitting home owners, fixed-income seniors, landlords and their tenants.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan. But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and clean tech.

Natural gas has an important role to play. But, we should use it to build our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport. BC businesses such as Westport Innovations and Vedder Transport have already positioned British Columbia as an innovative global leader in this area.

We could invest in innovation in the aquaculture industry, like the land-based technologies used by the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island who raise Atlantic salmon without compromising wild stocks.

The logging industry is booming as we send record amounts of unprocessed logs overseas. Now is the time to retool mills to foster a value-added second growth forestry industry.

These are just a few ideas that could help us move to the cutting edge in 21st the century economy. Fundamental to all of these ideas is the need to ensure that economic opportunities are done in partnership with First Nations.

Environment

The continued prosperity of 21st century extractive industries, like mining, which are critical to BC’s economy, require a strong and enduring social license to operate. Government has a crucial leadership role to play in this area. British Columbians are looking to their government to ensure that resource projects in B.C. prosper safely, responsibly and sustainably.

Unfortunately, over the last decade the BC government has weakened environmental monitoring expectations to dangerous levels that have cast dark shadows over our province’s extractive industries. From 2009 to 2014, the number of Government Licensed Science Officers – like foresters, geoscientists, and engineers — in government service dropped by 15 per cent and their work has been discontinued, diluted, or contracted out to the private sector.

When we fail to adequately monitor and inspect industrial activities, environmental disasters – like the tailings pond breach at the Mount Polley mine – occur, threatening the reputation of the entire industry and making it more difficult for projects to earn that essential social license. This needs to change.

Government Licensed Science Officers, have been, and could continue to be, our environmental safety net — when resourced properly they ensure that as our province prospers. And it does so with an eye to environmental stewardship and public safety. Reinvesting in keeping these positions in house, helps ensure government has the experience necessary to ensure we prosper safely.

If industries are going to thrive with a social license, we must ensure the environmental review process is stringent and upholds the highest standards, instead of being a symbolic or political rubber stamp process. We just have to look to the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline project to see how a poor review process can completely undermine any hope of earning a social license.

The costs of prospering safely in British Columbia should be borne by those who are prospering from our rich natural resources. That’s why we should look at financing these changes through a small increase in the corporate income tax. British Columbia already has one of North America’s most competitive tax climates for businesses with one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada. The Report of the Expert Panel on BC’s Business Tax Competitiveness found that a 0.5% increase of the general corporate income tax rate could generate $147 million a year.

These are small changes that could make a big difference in assuring British Columbians that their government is taking leadership to ensure resource industries prosper safely.

Affordability

A 21st century economy must also be an affordable one.

Right now, over half a million British Columbians are currently living in poverty. Of this number, over 160,000 are children. Four B.C. cities have recently been ranked among the five least affordable cities in Canada.

The government responds to these facts with the same old mantra: It can’t do more until the economy grows. Yet, we hear year after year from the government that the economy is growing, and this year we even have more than a $444 million budget surplus.

The fact is, we have seen growth, we have money to invest, and we know that if we invest capital smartly we will actually save in operating costs. So let me offer a few ideas of where we could start:

The Official Opposition has advocated for ending the atrocious policy of clawing back income supports for single mothers. It’s not an expensive change, but it’s an important one, so let’s start here.

Let’s also fix the Registered Disability Savings Plans and Registered Educational Savings Plans. Currently, RDSPs and RESPs do not receive the same protection that RRSPs and RRIFs do when a family or individual is faced with bankruptcy. This means that when faced with bankruptcy, these already vulnerable individuals lose the one thing that would otherwise provide a glimmer of hope for a financially stable future. By simply providing creditor protection for disabled individuals and children’s education funds we can make the pathway out of poverty that much easier for those individuals experiencing bankruptcy. And let me be clear: This is a policy change—it doesn’t cost anything.

At the same time we know from other jurisdictions, that by providing chronically homeless individuals with a home through Housing First Policies, we not only provide individuals with a basic human right – shelter – but also better health outcomes, all while realizing long-term, overall net savings to government.

Medicine Hat saw a 26% decrease in emergency shelter use in just four years and has housed over 800 people, including over 200 children. Utah has reduced chronic homelessness by 72% as of 2014. A housing first pilot project in Denver, Colorado found emergency related costs and incarceration costs declined by 72.95% and 76% respectively, while emergency shelter costs were reduced by an average of $13,600 per person. Canada’s own At Home/Chez Soi study found that for every $10 invested in housing first services there was an average savings of $21.72.

The solutions to our province’s affordability crisis are out there, and those solutions themselves are affordable. We just need to invest in them. Given everything we know, the question becomes this: how can we afford not to?

Health Care

The need for affordability must extend to quality health care too.

We can be proud that B.C. was recently ranked the healthiest province in Canada. This ranking shines a positive light on the healthy lifestyle choices British Columbians make each day. Yet, while we celebrate our successes, we must also remember that our health care system faces serious challenges.

With a highly regressive health care funding system, an aging population, major gaps in primary care, and surgery waitlists lasting anywhere from months to years, it is time for government to take a serious look at how our Health Care System is funded and administered.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada that continues to charge MSP premiums. Such premiums unfairly burden low and fixed income British Columbians with an overly heavy tax burden. With individuals earning a net annual income of $30,000 paying the same monthly flat fee as those earning $3,000,000 per year, it is evident that MSP premiums are perhaps the most regressive form of taxation in B.C.

Instead of charging MSP premiums, we could look at shifting to alternative, more progressive options such as was done in Ontario and Quebec. Rather than flat-rate fees, health premiums can be paid through the personal income tax systems. This avoids the regressive effects of flat-rate premiums and diminishes the additional costs associated with administering the MSP program.

But it can’t stop there. We also need to address the growing gaps in primary care. Doctor shortages and long wait times to get an appointment have led to increased use of walk-in clinics and emergency room services. Unfortunately, this can be costly for both patients and our health system, as a lack of follow-up and co-ordination can mean problems are missed or poorly managed.

Let’s look at investing more in Nurse Practitioners to help close some of these gaps and provide the high quality and timely care that British Columbians pay for and need. Let’s find more effective ways of funding these Nurse Practitioners. Let’s re-examine our approach to the delivery of chronic care services. Relying on acute care services, such as walk-in clinics and hospital emergency rooms, to deal with chronic health issues is both costly and inefficient.

Let’s consider increasing community and at-home care programs, which have been shown to provide better care at a more affordable cost. And let’s lobby the Federal government for our fair share of Canadian Health Transfer revenue, a share that reflects our demographics and the actual cost of delivering health services.

The possibilities for improving our health care system are plenty. As our population continues to age and gaps in primary health care continue to grow, it is more important now than ever to commit to re-examining how we provide affordable, quality health care in B.C.

Education

Public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province. Each and every one of us has attended school and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do and how we contribute to society. And public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society, and become the leaders of tomorrow.

Given this, why have we not shown more leadership in the Education sector?

At the end of the strike last fall, the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.”

The implication of this sound bite is NOT that government is stepping up to the task of finding new ways to fund and deliver a leading public education system. The reality is that they are stepping back, allowing their dysfunctional relationship with teachers to simmer, only to boil over again in a few years.

We are stepping back despite an overall 18% and a whopping 44% aboriginal six-year high school non-completion rate. We have school boards at a loss for how to fund their operations due to seemingly endless budget cuts. Surely this is not indicative of a government properly valuing publication education.

It is time for the government to take leadership.

Leadership means ensuring that the resources needed for success are provided. Over the last 13 years, education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP has declined from a high of about 6.4% to an estimated low of about 5.0%. This is not indicative of a government that is prioritizing education. We need to find new, progressive funding sources to reinvest in education.

Leadership means acknowledging that behind the curtain of the BCPSEA is the provincial government. Yet it is the government, not BCPSEA, that draws the lines in the sand on funding. By dismantling the BCSPEA and bringing its operations back into government, a signal could be sent that government is serious in developing a new relationship with teachers.

Leadership also requires a clear eyed assessment of what’s working, and what isn’t – and clearly a ‘one size fits all’ approach isn’t working. The needs on Haida Gwaii, are different from those on Vancouver Island which in turn are different from those in Surrey or Prince George. Now is the time to explore whether or not class size and composition negotiations are better conducted at the school district level instead of the provincial level.

The status quo on education isn’t addressing the growing challenges. We cannot wait until the next labour dispute. Now is the time to sit down with all those involved and start a dialogue about what a 21st century education system looks like, including how it is funded.

Conclusion

Honourable speaker, I’ve outlined an alternate direction that the province of British Columbia could and should be taking.

It’s a direction that puts the interests of British Columbians first, whether they be resident hunters, fishers, farmers, forestry workers, miners, educators, engineers, students or labourers, to name just a few examples.

Honourable Speaker, we have a government that is out of ideas, lacking leadership, creativity and innovation, and void of a vision.

Honourable Speaker, we have an official opposition that is almost exclusively focused on pointing out the government’s failures without ever offering viable solutions. Witness the amendment before us as a perfect example of this. And I quote:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regrets that the families in the province have seen their wages fall as they pay more for their basic services, while the government gives a break to the highest two per cent of income earners; regrets that the government has failed to meet its commitment that all British Columbians will have access to a general practitioner by 2015; regrets that seniors still do not have flexible options for home care or assisted living; regrets that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects as the government has bet on one sector rather than working with businesses and workers across B.C. to reach their potential; and regrets that the government will not fulfill its commitment for at least one LNG pipeline and terminal online in B.C. by 2015.”

Where are the solutions? We cannot stop at the word “regrets”, the key word littered throughout the proposed NDP amendment. Solving the concerns of British Columbians requires us to find solutions. And that starts with new ideas and new leadership.

Honourable Speaker, we have an official opposition that is also out of ideas, lacking leadership, creativity and innovation, and void of a vision.

And ultimately, Honourable Speaker, it is British Columbians who are paying the price for this lack of leadership from both parties.

There are too many people struggling in British Columbia for us to accept this status quo. There are too many incredible economic opportunities passing us by as we put all of our eggs in the LNG basket. To quote Preston Manning, “we are counting our chickens before the rooster even enters the hen house.”

We need real leadership in British Columbia and that starts with a willingness to offer new ideas, and to approach other peoples’ ideas constructively and with the same respect that we hope others will approach our ideas with. And that leadership could start here today by passing my subamendment that proposes adding the words:

“and recognizes that leadership in government requires a commitment to seek out and incorporate ideas from others, while leadership in opposition requires a commitment to offering solutions, and hence calls on this House to collaborate on the development of a new vision for British Columbia that builds on the good ideas of all members, regardless of their party affiliation.”

Thank you Honourable Speaker.