1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 9, Number 4
[ Page 5339 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Stephens: Later this morning, it will be a pleasure for me to introduce 108 grade 5 students from Willoughby Elementary School in Langley and their teacher, Ms. Porowski. A number of adults will be accompanying them. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Before orders of the day, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: May I have a minute to comment on the report? The report establishes Committee A to deal with estimates in the Douglas Fir Room, and the membership is established under the motion as circulated. I just want to put on the record that there is no provision with regard to independents. I will take the opportunity in the next few days to talk to the two independents who sit in the House and make sure that they have full opportunity to participate in estimates. We'll avoid some of the problems that occurred in the previous session. I just note that one of the independents is in the House, and I want to make it clear that we will deal with that issue as soon as I possibly can. With that said, I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
Just as further clarification, Committee of Supply will be sitting in two sections today: Section A and Section B. Today establishes that process.
The Speaker: Thank you for clarifying that for the House.
The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)
On vote 25: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
J. Dalton: Towards the end of yesterday's committee session, the issue of collective bargaining came up. I want to bring us back to that for one more point and one more reason, which I'll direct to the minister. We've had some discussion about the anticipated Korbin report. Of course, that's not within the purview of this committee, so I'm not going to comment on that. However, I wish to come back for a moment to the education funding review panel, because in that panel's final report there are several references to the collective bargaining process and its impact on funding the school system.
Before I even refer to particular points in the report, the terms of reference for the review panel are very open-ended. Two things in particular are of note: how to make the system more accountable and how to make it more affordable, among other descriptive terms. When we think of the affordability and accountability issues in the context of several comments about collective bargaining that this panel referred to, even though it did not address the issue -- such as the fact that the cost of collective bargaining outcomes has outstripped the economic adjustment factor.... That's found on page 15 of the report. On page 17 there's a reference to collective bargaining outcomes. And on page 20 -- and this is noteworthy -- "The reality of bargaining outcomes cannot be ignored."
I simply read those into the record because I would have thought, given the open-ended mandate of this panel and the very significant impact of collective bargaining on the funding process, that it would have been more appropriate for the education funding review panel rather than Korbin to have addressed the collective bargaining question, even though Korbin's mandate is much wider in scope. So I would like the minister's reaction as to whether it would have been more appropriate, and then we can get into reasons why it didn't happen that way.
G. Brewin: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Brewin: On behalf of my colleague the representative for Saanich South, I would like to introduce approximately 50 grade 11 and 12 students from Claremont Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Brennan. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to welcome the students as well. I know that you're in the midst of having a wonderful new school built and you're going to be very much a part of the Commonwealth Games, so it's a delight to have you in the House today. I am hoping to visit your school very soon. I just want to note, hon. members, that one of the strengths of this school -- with the students who are presently here -- is the strong working relationship between the students, the teachers, the support staff and your parents. So you're modelling the school of the future, and I hope that that's
[ Page 5340 ]
helping you to learn well. We're very happy to have you as part of the debate on our Education estimates today.
To the question from my hon. critic, he raises the question of the terms of reference of the funding review. The purpose of that review was to look at how we could get greater predictability in our education system in the future, what principles we should look at for an equitable and stable funding-distribution system, how the system of block funding could be improved, what the sources of funding for school boards should be and how we should deal with issues of targeting and issues around a clear understanding and accountability. As well, the terms of reference of the funding review clearly acknowledged that there was a parallel process underway, which the government had undertaken with respect to collective bargaining, and that the funding review would not be duplicating the work of the Korbin commission.
I want to say most strongly that the purpose of the work of both the Korbin commission and the funding review emphasizes the very strong commitment of government to look at processes that will ensure that our children get the best education that is possible for us to provide, within our existing resources and working relationships. That's the bottom line; that's the task. These processes are interactive, and in some ways they are not ending.
[10:15]
I've noted that as a result of the excellent work of the funding review, we are dealing with a number of recommendations. I don't want to steer us away from your line of questioning, but as we proceed with this line of questioning, I'll perhaps take some opportunity to emphasize the follow-up that has come from the funding review, consistent with its goals and our ongoing work. As you know, we are all awaiting the consultation and the development of recommendations that the Korbin commission of inquiry will provide for us. We've known that those two will inevitably need to come together in our ongoing work, when both processes have been completed, with Korbin commission's coming soon.
J. Dalton: Hon. minister, I need some clarification. I have in front of me two letters from last August which raise the issue as to whether the education funding review advisory panel would ultimately look at collective bargaining. I will read directly from a letter from the president of the BCTF: "The chairperson of the review insisted that options for collective bargaining structures were an essential part of the review. She said that was the job the minister had given her." I have another letter of very close date -- also in August -- from the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and again I will quote. "The consultant, Ms. Cindy Spangelo, was clear that although there were no written terms of reference for the work of the education funding review committee, her personal terms of reference allowed her to include any item she thought relevant for the process of education funding review, including bargaining structures."
There seems to be some mixed messages here. Clearly the chairperson of this funding process was originally of the opinion that her mandate included examining collective bargaining. Something happened in the shuffle of letters and paperwork, and it was her perception that that mandate had been taken away from her. Was this very important issue of collective bargaining taken from the funding review panel as the result of any direct ministerial intervention?
Hon. A. Hagen: The terms of reference for the funding review panel were published at the time the panel was established, and there was a recognition at that time of the parallel process with Ms. Korbin and the commission of inquiry dealing with collective bargaining. The answer to your last question is no.
J. Dalton: Thank you. I'm glad that this point has been clarified. It's something I've been wondering about for some time, given the evidence of the letters. Personally, I think it should have been treated differently; however, that did not happen. It could have been the case.
We'll move on, because I don't wish to belabour the particular point. I think we've certainly canvassed the opportunities for examining the collective bargaining process in this committee as far as we can. I can assure the minister that we on this side, as is she, are eagerly anticipating the Korbin report, which is going address many important matters of public sector financing and bargaining.
I would like to move into another area. It deals with a letter that the minister sent out to all school board chairs. In this letter the minister comments on voluntary compliance that she would like school districts to enter into with regard to administrative salaries. She outlines the government implementation, as far as executive council salaries and things of that nature that have been implemented.
The important thing -- this is what I will start with -- to quote from the minister's letter of April 13 is: "I am now requesting that all school boards voluntarily comply with the policy announced in the 1993 budget regarding compensation increases for senior managers in the public sector." The essence of the minister's letter is a request for voluntary compliance with the government policy. Obviously it's not obligatory. Given the recent newspaper articles on this and similar topics, the minister is sending out a strong suggestion to school districts that they look at the cost of administration and at salaries in particular. There has been a fair amount of controversy, as the member from Surrey pointed out the other day, about the Surrey School District's administrative costs. I would like to ask the minister why this sudden interest -- in a matter that admittedly must be addressed. All costs of government operations have to be addressed, whether we're looking at local school boards, hospital boards, commissions, executive council salaries, school budgets or hospitals. Why do we have this sudden interest from the minister, when she's actually dealing with only part of a much larger problem?
Hon. A. Hagen: It's interesting that it has taken a newspaper story to bring this to the member's attention.
[ Page 5341 ]
I've quoted from this letter two or three times during estimates in the last couple of days. I want to put the whole matter into a very positive context. In the letter I refer to the fact that I and other ministers who are responsible for grants that go out into the education and health sectors met with the leadership of those sectors some time ago and discussed with them some of the initiatives government was taking. It's been well known, for example, that for the second year in our administration the salaries of MLAs are frozen and there has been a rollback of cabinet ministers' salaries. In the budget the Minister of Finance announced a freeze on senior administration salaries in the public service among our ministries and in our Crowns. We have clearly provided leadership and set some examples. The letter I sent to school boards was a follow-up to that consultation. I reviewed the initiatives that government was taking and asked them to consider a voluntary compliance for their senior employees.
I think it is also significant that I have noted publicly that many school districts have taken that leadership role in the discussions between the school trustees and their senior management. I don't think it's necessarily known in the public that there have been decisions where, in some of the districts, a freeze of senior administration salaries is a part of the arrangements for the coming year. It is important for us to recognize that there's a leadership and modelling role that can occur. My respectful request to the school districts was that they consider taking action, as the government has, in this regard.
In a number of our discussions I have also noted that we have set policies around where we believe it's important. As we look at being stewards of our resources, we target those resources. From the time I became minister, my fundamental message to school boards is that as we look at how we manage the financial and human resources of our education enterprise, we should seek to ensure that those resources are, as much as possible, directed to where they will have an effect on children.
I want to say in this regard that everyone who works in our education enterprise plays an important role, but we are looking at stewardship of resources that we know are not infinitely expandable. Every organization needs to look at how it plans its work for the purpose of the enterprise. The purpose of education is to assist our children to be the best they can be and to get the best education they can. For me that means schools and classrooms are the focus. That's where the children are. That's where their learning is organized and where we need to pay very close attention as we manage those resources.
J. Dalton: I certainly have no quarrel with the minister's statement that ultimately the money should find its way into the classroom, which of course is the purpose of education. If we don't provide for the customer, then there's no point in having a system at all. But we all have to recognize there are other costs and budget factors that ultimately play into providing the best system of delivery, including some assurance to administrators that their mandate to run a school district is not unduly fettered.
I am interested, for example, that the minister is now talking about the ministry's stewardship in overseeing school district operations, and yet she seems to have been prepared to take a stand-off, laissez faire position on other issues and funding matters. So as we go through the line of questioning, perhaps we will detect some inconsistency as to whether the minister is truly the steward of the system or whether we have a conflict between that and local autonomy -- and perhaps learn which direction we should be taking.
We've had a series of strikes and lockouts in this province, some for protracted periods of time. I would suggest to the minister that there hasn't been a lot of evidence during the strikes and lockouts.... And we're certainly not finished with them, unfortunately, judging from last night's news that the Vancouver talks have broken off. They've reached a total impasse in the largest district in this province.
Let me go through some of the strikes, lockouts and time factors involved. Fernie was locked out for four weeks. Given that duration, there should have been some government indication, or even some direct interference, to prevent such a protracted lockout. Quesnel was strike-bound for two weeks. I happened to be in Quesnel at the end of the first week of that strike, and I met with teacher representatives, both at their strike headquarters and on the picket line, and with school district administrators. I was disappointed to hear from both sides that the ministry had shown no direct interest, if that's the right term, in that strike. Neither the minister nor someone from her ministry made any effort to offer assistance to the Quesnel district. If we're talking about the stewardship of the system, I would have thought that the minister would have shown an indication that they were aware of the strike -- and I'm sure she was -- and that they would like to be as helpful as possible. I know as a fact -- as I say, I was physically there and I talked to both sides -- that both sides expressed disappointment that the ministry had not made some effort to offer whatever services would be helpful in the process.
I will draw the attention of the committee to the Powell River lockout -- now a strike -- which I believe is into its fourth week. Again, there's obviously no indication from either the Ministry of Education or, more appropriately I suppose, the Minister of Labour, who indicated last week that he was going to intercede.... If I recall correctly from the questioning the other day by my colleague for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, this matter is not likely to be resolved until next month -- if then. We may lose the entire year as far as Powell River is concerned. Those are very unfortunate examples, hon. Chair.
[10:30]
I would also add another point: the minister experienced a two-day strike in her own district of New Westminster, which is unfortunate. But it's noteworthy that we have examples of protracted strikes and lockouts for weeks, and only a two-day shutdown in the New Westminster district. In the letter that I referred to and the minister commented on, we see evidence that
[ Page 5342 ]
the minister is suggesting that freezing salaries would be a nice idea and a good thing for school district administrators to strongly consider. I believe the minister is also strongly hinting at eventual direct interference in the administrative cost process, but that's down the line. The question to the minister is: is there an inconsistency between her inaction in dealing with protracted strikes and lockouts, and her stepping into a funding issue? It's admittedly an important issue, but I would suggest that it is only one of many.
Hon. A. Hagen: Since the member has made reference to some of the disputes, I think it is important for us to note that there is one other district that is currently under labour dispute, Vancouver Island North -- and Powell River. In both instances, the children in those communities are out of school.
Let me start my response by picking up on the member's comment about my school district. New Westminster did have a two-day strike; there were rotating strikes for a couple of weeks prior to that. Hon. member, the school board and the teachers' association agreed to a mediator, and with the assistance of a mediator they came to a resolution. I make that point because it was the parties themselves who resolved that issue in the context of the budgets made available to them by our government. I want to note very clearly that the resolution came out of the same information to that district in a very difficult year because of their will to reach a settlement. The point you are raising here is the issue of the responsibilities and accountabilities of myself as minister, boards of school trustees, teachers and the Minister of Labour. The settlement in one district was as a result of local people coming to that resolution with the assistance of a mediator provided by the Labour Relations Board. They worked long and hard. I know, because I followed that issue, as I know the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is following with a lot of agony what is happening in his district. But the responsibility was there. The parties need to be at the table, and they came to that resolution.
Let me deal with the Quesnel issue. I dispute your comment about no concern being expressed by my ministry. We spent long hours on the telephone talking to people. Representation from Quesnel came down to meet with their member in the Legislature, who worked extremely hard with the Minister of Labour and myself to see if he could assist with a resolution. That group of people from the community recognized that the problem lay in the parties finding a resolution. I always remember the wonderful words of a 14-year-old boy who said: "I feel as if I'm swimming in the middle of a lake, and I don't know which shore to go to." I understand the views of the board, and I understand the views of the teachers, but I know that somehow the two shores have to come together and talk the thing out. They did, too, with the assistance of a mediator.
We have provided districts with very clear parameters for bargaining this year. I've outlined them before, but I'll go through them again. Last fall we made it very clear to everybody involved in the education system that there would likely be zero economic adjustment in budgets for this year. There was very strong foreshadowing. The Minister of Finance, members of Treasury Board acting for government and I met with every possible group to inform them fully about the economic situation in order to understand that we would be supporting growth in the education system but that we would be managing that system very tightly. They've had their budgets for the current year since February of '92, for next year since February of this year.
So boards and teachers know what the parameters are, and what I've said to them is: "Get real. Remember what the issue is -- our kids. You have jobs to do, and you need to resolve this at the collective bargaining table." I believe that the responsibility and accountability for that resolution lies clearly with the parties, and although I, like the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, dislike, with an intensity that I can't possibly convey, our kids being out of school, the parties involved have a responsibility and a legal accountability to get that resolved.
The Minister of Labour is working with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. They're talking about the issues there and what the roadblocks are. I know that the member is working on behalf of his constituents; I support that work, and if I can contribute to it in any way, I will. But the responsibility and the accountability lie with the parties. New Westminster is an example that a resolution can be achieved. The financial situation is clearly known, and people need to make their agreements and get on with teaching our children.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the words of the minister with respect to the work that is going on in trying to resolve the dispute in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I'd like to relate something for the official record and for the minister this morning. When I left Powell River to fly back here, there was a young grade 5 girl, in a very tearful moment, clutching a stuffed toy and saying goodbye to her mother. She was leaving to get her schooling in Terrace. That's what this is about. It is not about school boards and teachers; it's about young people being taken from their families in order to complete a school year. That young girl is now going to have to go and stay with an aunt in Terrace in order to complete the school year. It was a very tearful and difficult moment for a mother who has had to send her daughter out of the district.
In light of that comment -- and that is the kind of human tragedy we're dealing with here -- there is a growing indication now that because of a very tight budget situation, school districts that are either in a strike or lockout situation will financially be able to put forward a better settlement because of money saved through work disputes. As somebody who has been in the labour negotiation field, I can tell you that there is always a concern that if in fact school districts are able to save money over a protracted period of time, ultimately, at the end of a dispute, they will be able to put dollars that should be committed to the schools into a settlement, given that there have been savings for one, two or three months. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that in light of the budgetary process and the obligation that school districts have
[ Page 5343 ]
under the laws of British Columbia for the provision of education for students, and also comment on what directive she might be giving boards with respect to trying to balance their budgets essentially off the backs of students who are out of school.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me make it clear again that grants for instruction are recovered by the Ministry of Education if instruction isn't offered. The strike in Powell River will not provide the means for a settlement. In the education sector, we recover all of the salaries of teachers when they're not providing instruction because of a strike or lockout. So there's no benefit to boards because of that strike.
J. Dalton: I have two or three other points I want to bring up about the recent publicity due to the minister suggesting to boards that they have some voluntary compliance. I want to make a comment and follow up on the statement made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about money that is not used because the system is shut down. In December of 1991, soon after the minister took over the portfolio, there was an extra grant found for every school district in the province. The stated reason for part of that grant was that there were savings because of strikes and lockouts earlier that year. Just to follow up on my colleague's point, could the districts expect any such gifts this year? Perhaps they will come in December, when Santa Claus arrives. Is there any such expectation for 1993, based on the 1991 experience?
Hon. A. Hagen: In 1991 we did make a grant to school districts because of the fact that enrolments were lower than expected that year, and there were cost pressures in growing districts. We gave a grant for learning resources. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale will be interested to note that a significant portion of that grant went to districts like his, which were experiencing cost pressures because of growth, to assist them in being able to provide learning resources in their classrooms. That was a one-time grant with a special emphasis on support for the rapidly growing districts.
J. Dalton: I must say I didn't detect a direct answer to my question, but I'm not going to pursue that particular point.
I want to come back to this recent letter of voluntary compliance. Another issue that's going to come out of this suggestion from your letter, hon. minister, is that some districts have contractual commitments to their administrators. Many of those are based on whatever settlement results from negotiations with the local teachers' association. In this letter to all school board chairs, is the minister suggesting that any contractual commitments that are in place in school districts should not be honoured?
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just read from the letter, because I want to be very clear about what I said. This is a letter directed to all the chairs of school boards in the province. I'm going to read the first paragraph:
"As you may know, on March 24 the hon. [Minister of Finance], the hon. [Minister of Health] and the hon. [Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology] and I met with representatives of provincial health and education employer associations regarding executive compensation. I understand Mr. Jack Finnbogason, president, B.C. School Trustees' Association, has provided information to member boards on the discussions which took place."
So we have very openly discussed the issues of the government's proposals and the fact that we had taken initiatives as MLAs and cabinet ministers to freeze and roll back salaries. Then I went on to request voluntary compliance.
Again I want to note, quoting from my letter:
"I understand that a number of school boards and senior officials have already recognized the need to show leadership in this regard and have taken steps to address this issue. I am now requesting that all school boards voluntarily comply with the policy announced in the 1993 budget regarding compensation increases for senior managers in the public sector."
I provided the guidelines that the government has used in the freeze for members of our senior management group. I noted, and I would like to note again, that the government will be receiving the Korbin commission report, which is expected to address the matter of executive compensation in the British Columbia public sector.
[10:45]
I would note, too, hon. member, that this letter reflects a consultative approach. It reflects my respect for the autonomy of boards and their employees. I would also note that Ms. Korbin has been consulting with the management groups in school districts as she prepares her recommendations for government. This is a request for voluntary compliance, and it's in the context of leadership having been shown by government -- by members of the executive council and with the cooperation of senior management.
J. Dalton: I'm not so sure that all school administrators share either thought the minister's just expressed: that they've been properly consulted or that they're happy with the prospect of this voluntary compliance. When contacted, some school administrators felt they'd been unfairly targeted. Specifically, the chair of my North Vancouver School District, Don Bell, commented: "She's picked an easy target. There was always a public perspective that there are too many administrators." This has been an ongoing controversial topic. In fact, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale was on his feet yesterday on this topic. He and the Finance minister attracted headlines for a day or two when he raised this question initially, two or three months back, about administrative salaries in the North Vancouver School District.
I want to make it clear that I have no quarrel with looking at all costs of all government operations, but I don't think that's truly the issue that we're discussing this morning. Admittedly -- in the perception of the taxpayer, among others -- the cost of government is
[ Page 5344 ]
escalating to an unacceptable state, and it attracts headlines when we get into topics like this. Yesterday the member for Surrey-Cloverdale raised the question from his school district of Surrey of the concerns about alleged credit card misuse. It's certainly not been proven, but they're examining the question of credit card use in that and in other districts where it's been raised.
I'm suggesting that the minister is now picking up on a theme that's suddenly become of public interest and public concern -- and rightly so. But I have to question whether she's trying to deflect away from more significant issues in school districts -- for example, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast just commented on, the very harmful and human tragedies that are unfolding in this province. I truly believe that the minister is grabbing a headline or two about 3 to 4 percent of administrative costs -- the big chunk of that being salaries, of course -- and that we're not properly addressing the much more global question of school costs right across the board.
We have seen the education funding review report, although I don't think it gets specific enough in some of these very important questions. We're all awaiting the Korbin report. But in the meantime we're all trying to grab headlines, I think, for the wrong reasons.
The minister has indicated that administrative costs should be taken up with the boards. I'm referring back to the point that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale raised yesterday. You said to him: "That's a local matter; take it up with the school district." Things such as credit card use, the bargaining process, the salary requests of teachers, reduced class size -- whatever it may be -- are all local matters, and that's recognized. Now we see the minister coming into the forum and saying: "By the way, it would be nice if school administrators addressed the cost of salaries and got into voluntary compliance." I think she's strongly hinting that if you don't, then she's going to come along sooner or later and intercede -- and it may be justified at some point, but I don't think it is now. I think every taxpayer in this province is probably crying out -- and the tax rallies and the other things going on indicate it -- for some leadership, for some demonstration of government cutting back right across the board. Let's not play games with the 3 or 4 percent for administrative salaries, because I think that's a loss leader. That's truly dragging a herring across the trail for the wrong reasons. I am suggesting that the minister is being contradictory in her approach. In one breath she is saying to a member of this committee, "Go to your local school district and it will address the questions of costs of travel and other expenses," and now she's interceding, in a sense, with the same school district and saying: "By the way, I am the steward of this system. I'm going to be strongly suggesting to you what you do about costs."
Hon. A. Hagen: There's a great temptation in this debate to ask where the member stands, because as I listen to him I'm not sure whether he would be supportive of administrators voluntarily holding their salaries at last year's line.
The Chair: Order, please. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a point of order?
K. Jones: Yes, hon. Chairman. These estimates are for the examination of the minister's estimates as put forward in the budget. They are not for the minister to ask questions of the opposition.
The Chair: That's not a valid point of order. I don't believe a question was actually asked.
Hon. A. Hagen: When answering the question, it helps if one understands from what type of perspective the member is coming. To make the point more strongly, I am not sure from which perspective he is coming. Does he want us to spend more on education and to cut taxes? Does he want us to provide leadership, as we have, in terms of administrative salaries and to suggest that those in high-salary positions might consider that respectful request? Does he want to recognize, as my letter indicates, that this doesn't single out the education sector and that we have talked to the advanced education and health sectors, which both provide services from the dollars of taxpayers?
I know my hon. colleague from the Advanced Education ministry and my hon. colleague the Minister of Health share those perspectives and show the leadership we have provided. They respect the responsibility and autonomy of the bodies who administer the local taxpayer grants to make decisions and provide leadership. It would be helpful, hon. Chair, if that member on the other side would allow me to make the statements in the respectful way that his hon. colleague makes them to me. I listen closely, and I want him to hear what I have to say.
I want to note that editors write headlines; I don't. That's why I'm making the approach I've taken very clear. It's an important one, because there are two jurisdictions here. I said last year, and I'll say it very strongly again: we need to have, on the part of our government and of our co-governors, the best possible accountability and management of our system.
I respect the fact that just as we struggled with budgets to bring our deficit down -- from the $2.4 billion that we inherited from the previous administration to under $2 billion this year, to $1.5 billion -- while preserving and improving services, our school districts, the Advanced Education ministry, universities, colleges and hospitals will also face that challenge. I want to support them in that endeavour and to recognize that it is not easy. But last fall we made it clear that we were going to manage and preserve services when the revenues and the economy were in the process of a major restructuring, and that in order to do that we would have to learn to manage smarter and more efficiently. I want to say, hon. member, that some districts bit the bullet and made changes that are in the direction that I've been encouraging us all to go, where we look at delayering, targeting and making sure resources are available at the school level. I would not take it upon myself to comment in any way about each jurisdiction, because I don't have the kind of informa-
[ Page 5345 ]
tion -- or the responsibility -- for those jurisdictions directly.
I have a lot of faith in school trustees and in all the people who work in the system. They are committed to kids, just as we are. They have a job to do that's part of their responsibility under law and under their daily operations, and we're both struggling to ensure that jobs are there, that we look at fair wages and working conditions, that we respect the important collective bargaining process and improve it in all sectors, and that we make sure that the very large number of dollars -- $3.4 billion out to the schools of the province -- is there for our children and their learning, because the public says that education is a service, a task and a responsibility that we have as a society and that we are going to give our highest attention to.
I support that, and I support the work of school boards. The direction I provide is one that shares with them some of our vision and some of the directions we're taking, and I have a great deal of confidence that they will take that advice and deal with it in an appropriate way. We will celebrate and recognize that many boards have already taken such good initiatives.
J. Dalton: The minister made several references as to where I and the official opposition might be coming from. She also commented on headlines being created. I would first comment about the media approach to the myriad issues facing the education system today. We've only been able to touch on some of them so far in the estimates, and time will not allow us to hit on each and every one of them in any detail. I agree with the minister's point that the media will create whatever headlines it thinks are saleable or likely to produce some readership, but I truly believe that we're getting into what I described when the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale got into this controversial topic and I thought he was just trying to deflect attention away from far more serious issues. Those issues are clearly the ones that we commented on this morning regarding the shutdown of school districts. I would like to see the government show more leadership in resolving those issues, and not get too fussed and bothered about something which is admittedly important but is not the panacea to resolve all of the difficulties in school districts. By that I mean it's not just enough to say: "Let's have some voluntary compliance, and maybe these other issues will be sort of swept under the rug."
I'll also make a brief comment about where I'm coming from. I want to see some things implemented as soon as possible, such as multi-year funding so that school districts are not limping from year to year, not knowing whether they can settle with their teachers because they are not even sure what's coming out of the pipeline in the way of money. We have to treat districts fairly. If we're going to respect local autonomy, we have to give the local school districts some measure of responsibility other than just saying every three years: "Elect some trustees; we'll give you some money from Victoria and what you do with it is your business." The minister is again being inconsistent when she says: "It's your business what you do with the money, but by the way, now we're going to tell you what to do with some of that money" -- referring to the administrative issue.
I want to see some serious public and other discussion of the collective bargaining process. I commented on that earlier today, and it is a very significant impact. That's going to cover up to 90 percent of the costs of education distribution, and that issue is yet to be resolved. Maybe Korbin will hit upon it directly. I don't have any strong conviction that that will be so, but we will see.
[11:00]
Here's a question for the minister. I was going to raise this later in the estimates, but I think it's appropriate to raise it now. I would like to see the minister address the issue of the number and the size of school districts in this province. We have 75 school districts, each of which has a bureaucracy to run the district -- a needed bureaucracy the way the system is set up. But has the minister examined and questioned whether in fact we need 75 school districts? Obviously there is a fairly heavy provincewide administrative cost, given the number of districts.
There's another point built into that. For each district, naturally, you have to have a collective bargaining process. So it comes back to the other point. Although we've settled 45 districts out of the 75, we had 75 separate collective bargaining processes going on. As Korbin indicated in her interim report, $9 million-plus is spent on collective bargaining. And there's another side issue to this. Some districts are very reluctant, and in fact have not got into two-year settlements, because they don't want to be facing the second unpleasant year of not knowing how much money they are going to get, even though they would be committed to a salary settlement if they got into the second year.
Those are some of the issues that I think we all have to address, and I hope those comments may be helpful for the minister to understand where I and the official opposition are coming from on these issues.
Hon. A. Hagen: As I've noted, boards do have budget information for the years that are currently being bargained. I've also made clear that I very strongly support the concept of multi-year funding, for at least two years, so that boards can be assisted in planning.
On the issue of the number of school districts, the member raises a point that I have heard people talk about on many different occasions, and it has been raised when I've met with most of the boards in the province. As is understandable, all boards feel very strongly about their jurisdictions. I think the member would understand that. For example, if we were to look at an amalgamation, his boards in West Vancouver could be one rather than two.
The interesting thing -- if I can just share this -- is that some of the very best innovative work with children is occurring with our smaller boards. I just wanted to acknowledge that, because there is a sort of perception in the lower mainland that everything that's exciting, progressive, new and innovative is happening here. But I've been in Summerland, I've closely watched the work that is going on in Kimberley, and I've looked
[ Page 5346 ]
at the Queen Charlottes and at Qualicum. By exclusion I'm going to leave out some of the smaller districts that I find are doing very solid work in improving and changing their education systems, with a vision that is consistent with our vision and philosophy. It's really making a difference.
My point on your question is that any changes of that nature are ones that I would hope we would talk about and look at in ways that are going to enhance children's education. It's a bit like the collective bargaining issue. There's a perception that what we're doing is not entirely working, and if we go to something else, it would work absolutely wonderfully. I don't happen to have that view about how we make changes and improve the system. We really need to think and talk carefully.
One thing that happened when the former administration brought in Bills 19 and 20 was that they literally brought them in without even the ministers involved knowing what those bills were. The Labour minister was out consulting about changes while there was a bill being drafted in the Premier's office that the minister did not know about. Unlike you, hon. member, who took eight or nine weeks to debate a very good bill, we spent four or five weeks debating and amending a bill that was a horror story. It was my first session. It created some of the issues that we are currently facing, because the spadework wasn't done.
The education enterprise in this province has been around for a long time. Our teachers, support staff, principals, superintendents and secretary-treasurers do a very fine job for our children. We see the results in our assessments, international scores and grade 12 examinations but, more importantly, in the day-to-day work that children do. I see that. I'm glad to hear that you are getting around. I hope you are getting into schools and seeing some of that as well.
When we move to make changes and improvements, we as a government are going to make those by working with the people in the field who deliver on the ground for our kids. The Education ministry sees itself as part of a partnership with the people who work in education in British Columbia, not as some fiefdom in Victoria that dictates to them. We work with them. We celebrate, exemplify and share what is happening in those districts.
Again, I go back to some of the changes that are occurring. I commented earlier about the Prince George School District, which has done some very extensive work in looking into how it can best deliver. They will help other districts to look at how that can happen. If at any time we were to look at the kinds of changes you're suggesting.... I think the public is also looking at those and asking that question. It's a good public-policy question, and we should think about it and act upon it in such a way as to ensure that any policy changes we might consider are thoughtfully worked out. Size of district is a very interesting issue. We can have districts that are too large, where perhaps some smaller sizes could occur. We need to look at those questions thoughtfully. Will this improve education for our children? Will it make the most effective and efficient use of our education dollar? Those, for me, are the bottom-line questions.
J. Dalton: I'll make one comment on the minister's response, and then I'll move into another area. I do agree that districts can be too large. The downside is that some should probably be considered too small. Not to be critical of a particular district but in order to give an example, last year I met with the superintendent of the Grand Forks School District, and he was a very happy camper. He knows every student in the district. When you think of a district the size of Vancouver or even North Vancouver, it's unbelievable that a superintendent of schools would be personally acquainted with every student in his school district, but in Grand Forks, of course, there are only four schools in the entire school district. I would add that the superintendent was also a very pleased person because he didn't have the same budgetary concerns that many other school districts were going through then and, of course, are going through this year. I just cite that as an example of a district that may, in some eyes, be considered too small.
I recognize that there are other problems -- transportation issues, communication issues -- and we can't start reshaping the map of B.C. for the wrong reasons. I certainly endorse the minister's remarks about a proper examination of the size and number and not sort of knee-jerking our way through a process. Her point about North Vancouver and West Vancouver districts is well taken; maybe they should be brought together. I can assure any school official from either of those districts that as the MLA representing parts of both, I am not standing on my feet advocating it; but I would be the first to champion such an examination if there were a demonstrated need to be more efficient, more cost-effective and ultimately -- coming back to the minister's comment earlier today -- to get the money to the customer in the classroom. That's the goal. How we reach it will be a very interesting exercise over time.
I have another issue to raise, with regard to the school calendar. I was going to bring this up yesterday but we ran out of time. I have in front of me the minister's suggested calendar for the next five years. I'm happy to see that we're moving away from the prospect, as I believe it was for the next calendar year, that if we didn't make some changes we would drop to 181 days. There were some real horror stories coming out of that prospect. But we've overcome that difficulty. Personally, I don't have any difficulty with identifying the logistics behind opening schools every year the day after Labour Day, because that's what we're all tuned into, and then, towards the end of the calendar, looking at when in June it would be proper to conclude the school year. The minister has proposed -- it's not yet law, of course; I guess it will be later this spring -- that for '93-94 and the following year, two days be set aside for community-school interaction days. What in particular does the minister have in mind as the purpose of those two days?
Hon. A. Hagen: The parents who worked very actively with us on the policy review made very strong
[ Page 5347 ]
representations to have opportunities for the schools and the community to work together, particularly around some of the changes that are taking place. We know that as the community gets to know more about the changes and has an opportunity to work with the school district and the teachers on those changes, the better we are in diversifying our schools, in providing opportunities for our secondary students and in dealing with issues that are important in the community.
I think the best way to illustrate how that might work, hon. member, is to comment about a couple of districts where this is already happening. In the Cowichan School District for the last two years there has been that kind of program set up by the district in cooperation with the community. I've had input, just informally, on a number of occasions when I've met business people, like at a chamber of commerce luncheon or something of that nature, who have spoken about how powerful and useful that has been in the development of education in the community. In fact, that particular community is now sending people off into other districts to provide them with some support as they move into that kind of consultation. Qualicum is another district, for example, doing that kind of work. In Qualicum they've actually set up an education advisory council that somewhat parallels the provincial one and has representation from a broader community.
[11:15]
One of the values very much embedded in our educational change processes is the role of the community in education. The role of the parent, of course, is intrinsically there and much more manifest now, but the role of the community is increasingly important. As we look at career programs, at the shadowing that students are doing around jobs, at breaking down the walls, if you like, so that young people are move involved in the community and so that the community comes in, there's a need for that working relationship to be nurtured. I'm very pleased that we're able to do this as a part of the ongoing improving of our system. I want to commend the parents, who were the strongest advocates of this, and to commend those school districts where the modelling is, as we proceed with the use of those days over the next three years.
J. Dalton: I appreciate the response, because how these might work out is certainly something that I've been looking forward to asking. Of course, I guess it's like anything else -- until we test it we're not going to know the mechanism precisely. Along with the minister, I'm certainly more than happy to applaud the efforts of parent advisory committees. Every school district and every school, in fact, has excellent committees of that nature.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
This is just a matter of initial concern that I would like to record; I don't need a response on it. I have a fear that there may be a bit of a public backlash when they see such things, because certainly the public is concerned about the number of days that our students spend in the classroom. For example, not every parent or other person involved directly or indirectly in the process is happy with the five instructional, or PD, days that are set aside. I personally think those days are warranted. Teachers do need the opportunity to get together collectively within a district, within a school.
I hope the minister does recognize that the public perception of those is not always as positive as perhaps it should be. I guess it comes back to something I commented on yesterday about how we all have to be better public relations consultants and promoters of the system in order that the negative side can be overcome as much as possible. So I'm just pointing out that there may be some initial negative reaction when the public spots these things, and we all had better be alerted to that.
I guess I also have another side issue or concern. If we're truly going to try to involve the community in these two days that are set aside, it's not going to work ideally, because a large part of the community will be working during the school day. That's fine for some of the parents, but many parents are working. As well, we shouldn't just be thinking of the parents when we talk about the system. We've got to think of the taxpayer, the people who don't have children in the system, the people who are just as concerned and vitally interested in the educational process, not just the parents, teachers and students. Those are all important components, but clearly there are many other people as well. I'll be anxiously waiting to see how this exercise works out when we get into the first school-community interrelated days and see if it's a positive experience. I trust that it will be.
I want to move off that topic because that's something I just wanted to cover before we got into other aspects. Next I would like to raise some questions and concerns about the Year 2000. The way I commonly describe the Year 2000 to people who invite me to react or comment on it is to say that as far as I'm concerned, it's the lightening rod of public issues concerning education. Clearly, from the people whom I've talked with and to about educational issues, they don't understand the Year 2000. That's understandable, because it's a very complicated process when you start developing a new curriculum direction and process; nobody would quarrel with that.
The Year 2000 has attracted a lot of controversy, headlines and articles. The Globe and Mail is a very popular source, for me at least, of educational articles on the Year 2000, and comparable programs in other provinces. British Columbia is not unique in moving into a child-centred approach to education, but B.C. seems to be attracting perhaps an unfair share of criticism as to how this program is being put into place. I would also note for the committee's information that Alberta is taking a second look and is apparently doing an about-face on a similar process. I'm not saying that we should be like Alberta; I think B.C. is unique and will happily celebrate our uniqueness. But British Columbia has to be aware of the criticism that's coming down the pipeline on this very important topic, which, of course, we are now implementing. I want to just deal with a few points of concern that come out of it.
[ Page 5348 ]
Now we're into the primary implementation stage already. In fact, my youngest daughter is just finishing her final year in the primary grade. I would say, on a personal level, that her school is certainly a happy one. She's a happy student in a very good school in a good district, I'm happy to say. But I will share with this committee one concern that my wife and I have with the reporting system that my daughter is experiencing in her final year in the primary level. This is more of a personal thing than anything to do with politics as such, but I think it's a valid point, and it does demonstrate the public concern that is raised.
It's a question of reporting to parents, and it's probably one of the headline-grabbers. If you pick up a controversial article on the Year 2000, you're bound to find something in it about the absence of effective reporting or measuring sticks. We don't know how our students are doing. How are they going to progress from the K-3 into the intermediate and then into the graduate level? That is the sort of concern I have. The only point that I would raise -- and this isn't a point of real criticism but is just for information -- is that the anecdotal reporting that we see in our daughter's report card is, of itself, informative. But I must confess I'm a bit uncertain as to whether my daughter is progressing at an average level, or whether she's fallen behind, or whether she's charging ahead.
I guess I come from the old school, and maybe the minister does, too -- no reflection on her age. But we are familiar with a different system of evaluation in our schooling. I think the public has to have its fears alleviated about this grading problem, among others. As I say, it's a concern that my wife and I have experienced on occasion, but happily -- and I'm sure the minister would respond this way anyway -- we, of course, will go to the teacher in the school and extract other information. But not all parents have that opportunity. When I go to a parent-teacher night or afternoon or whatever it may be, if time allows.... Not as many parents attend these sessions as I think should, quite frankly. So I think we have to take into account also that there are many parents who for whatever reasons -- work and other pressures of time -- do not have the opportunity to expand upon the reporting system that is now occurring in the primary level. Therefore there may be some merit in the argument that is in part advanced, that maybe we should reconsider and go back to the combination of anecdotal and some letter-grade type reporting. I can assure you that the bottom line in my interest in my daughter's education is that I want to be sure that she is progressing in an orderly and progressive fashion through a system that will match her with her fellow students. I truly think that's the evaluation process we have to judge everyone in this society with, whether they are going through the education system, K to 12, or advancing through life in general. That's just one of the concerns I would like to share with this committee. Perhaps the minister has some observations on that herself.
Hon. A. Hagen: The member has raised a number of matters and I am very glad we are able now to talk about what's happening in the classrooms and about how our parents get to know what they need and want to know. Perhaps I can just start on the reporting issue and note that the member referred respectfully to my age, but that does let me have a relatively long history, because I've been a parent and then a school trustee.
I quite honestly don't remember my primary-age children ever getting a report card that wasn't in some measure anecdotal. So the approach to primary reporting is very consistent with practice: a wide range of information about how my children were learning the skills needed in reading and math and writing, how they were doing in the knowledge-based activities involved in primary years, and how they were doing as young citizens. The method goes back a long way, if you like. However, hon. member, questions have been raised. What do parents know as a result of a report, and is it meeting their needs? We are going to be doing some work over the next couple of months -- with a report to me in June -- on primary reporting, looking at how parents are feeling about it, and whether there are ways in which we can make that reporting more effective.
I could go into it in more detail. But I think we should look at the primary reporting as being fundamentally consistent with the practice that has been there for many, many years. Now it's more thorough, I think. Parent-teacher conferences are very much a part of it, and at times the children are involved as well. They are learning to look at where they are strong, where their weaknesses are in their learning, where they need to improve, and what, as a result of that report, the child and teacher, with the support of the parent, are going to do to improve their learning. Fundamentally, that's what an assessment and a report card are all about: where are we now, and what do we need to do to continue to learn? Where do we have to particularly look at building on our strengths and at working on those things we may not know quite as well as we need to -- and you spoke about that -- for what's expected of that age?
I think we should also make clear that from grade 4 through to grade 10 there are options to use letter grades, and many teachers still do, along with additional comments on students. In the graduation years, letter grades are a mandatory part of the reporting procedures. We can certainly provide you with some more information on that, because we haven't time to do it entirely. It's a system that has been in place. We're dealing with some questions and concerns, because we want to be sure that parents are served by those reports; that's very important to us. In the intermediate and graduation programs, letter grades are optional up to grade 10 and mandatory beyond that.
I might comment, then, on the changes that are occurring in our school system. The primary program grew out of the practices that have been there since my children were in school -- my oldest son is over 30 now -- and the basic learning and skill development are still the fundamental curriculum. The standard curriculum that you and I know about -- social studies, English, math, sciences, languages -- is still there. All of those subjects are compulsory right through to grade 11 -- or
[ Page 5349 ]
most of them are; languages aren't. There are more options when they get to grade 12.
At this time we are committed to improving and changing the education system with the philosophy of the Year 2000, which really says that every child is entitled to be the best that child can be and that our system should try to make that possible. But we need to work on the intermediate and graduation program in partnership. It's important to note that those programs are not in place in the school system at this time. We've had an enormous amount of very constructive input from parents, and we will be continuing with the development of those programs.
Your colleague from Okanagan East talked about some variations in our system right now. Part of that is because we have been working in the field with what we call developmental sites, where two or three teachers in a school district are taking the initiative to work on some of the changes on a pilot basis. I hope to visit some of those sites later on this year. That's also helping to provide the practices and experience to carry us into the kinds of changes that are needed.
Let me just look at some of the changes that are happening simply because our schools are responding. For example, career programs have doubled in number. More and more young people are getting practical work experience, job shadowing, opportunities to explore their academic goals. All of that is consistent with the focus on the learner, on the student and on programs that fit that student's needs, within the core curriculum and within good reporting and standards.
[11:30]
I don't like to measure one province against another, but I have commented that we do measure our students through our learning assessments for grades 4, 7 and 10. It's a rotation over five years, I think, where every subject is tested. This year we will be participating for the first time in the Council of Ministers of Education national school achievement indicators program in math, and next year in reading and writing.
B.C. has been at the heart of participating in international testing, although those measures can only give us some indication, because the Japanese and Chinese students, for example, are not all represented in those samples. The students in the academic programs take the tests, whereas in our programs all of the students are drawn for the sample. B.C. stands at or above the Canadian average, and often at or above the Alberta standard in math, science, geography, reading and writing. Those are things that the headline writers should write about, because they are the things that are telling us about the good things going on in our schools.
I know your colleague from Richmond East is profoundly interested in education. She knows that work needs to be done and that we need to make changes carefully, but we need to continue with that from a supportive framework of working with our teachers and our communities, our parents and our kids. That's how, in any human enterprise, you have a good education system. The more we listen, work on good practice, respond to questions and concerns, and continue to develop in each of the regions, the better our education system will be. As I've said so often in this Legislature, that's something I think everybody here is committed to doing.
So we pay attention to the criticisms that come. The reporting one is a good illustration. I believe we will have some good responses, suggestions and directions for our schools coming out of that review of what parents are feeling and how we can better serve their interest in knowing what the children are learning and how they're doing.
J. Dalton: I certainly agree with the minister's comment that in the framework of the Committee of Supply process we can't expect to get into all the intricacies of the Year 2000. There is a lot of philosophy and pedagogical direction and things like that that we have to discuss in a different forum. Perhaps the minister and I can get together over lunch. I guess I'd have to offer to buy, if I'm going to make that suggestion.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'll go Dutch -- although that's....
J. Dalton: Yes, I was going to say that perhaps it's a sensitive expression. By the way, it reminds me that another member from your side still owes me a lunch from last year's debate -- but that's a topic for another day.
Let's get right into one of the estimates on the educational programs, and then I'm going to defer to one of my colleagues. I'm asking this because a lot of the concern that administrators in high schools are sharing with me is whether the intermediate and graduate programs are being properly implemented. Are they gearing up for 1994-95? I think it's vital -- and I'm sure the minister would agree with this -- that we have proper implementation so that not only are the good things in the Year 2000 implemented properly but also the lead-in from the graduation program, the lifelong-learning process that we talked about earlier, is effectively done. The Year 2000 documents, of course, do talk about these things in general terms. I would like the minister to advise the committee as to what expenditures out of the educational programs subvote are devoted to intermediate implementation and to graduation implementation.
Hon. A. Hagen: Our educational programs division is the main locus, if you like, for educational change activities. The three programs -- primary, intermediate and graduation -- are a part of that. Our educational change committee continues to work with us from the broad community sector, and to monitor.
Again, you've asked a complex question in terms of the amount of money devoted to education change activities. I guess my best way of answering is that roughly a third of the direct ministry budget -- that's the budget that's closely aligned with what we would consider education activities -- or about $31 million, is devoted to education change activities. Some of the elements that are part of it include research, program development -- this is curriculum -- assessment, de-
[ Page 5350 ]
velopments in technology, learning resources, support in the field for a lot of the work that we do with our committees and with partnerships and communications, and evaluation activities.
We also have, with the block of funds to school districts, $8 million specifically allocated for education change. I'm factoring our two new programs, the inner-city schools program and the teen parenting program, into that amount because they really are a new way of looking at how we can enhance children's learning. We want those young women -- we have a couple of young men in our teen parenting programs, but they're mostly young women -- to stay in school and get their graduation. Also, interestingly enough, what happens with the teen parenting program is that they get support for their parenting. Very often, when teenagers have a baby, they're isolated from the community. If you've been to any of the teen parenting programs, they're an education, not only with the child care for the young parents whose infants and toddlers are there but for all the young people in the particular school.
The inner-city schools program is designed very specifically to enhance learning for children whose opportunities may be compromised by social or economic circumstances or by the fact that they may be new to the country and still getting through the settlement phase.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter the debate on education estimates for this year. Last year the minister and I visited the topic of how Richmond believes it is different from other districts of equal or comparable size. I'm wondering if there has been any progress on a long-range funding formula or some sense of a rational long-term plan, because I know the minister agrees that fairness is the issue. If people were more aware of the issues in the funding formula, they would be able to better understand the decisions that were reached. I know, hon. minister, that last year we visited the question of comparing the Burnaby School District to the Richmond School District and looking at how we could come up with a formula that would allow a clear understanding of the funding disparity. Could the minister kindly comment on where we go from here to bring that funding more in line, or on how to better explain the disparity in the system?
Hon. A. Hagen: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. Last year she addressed the fact that we were still in a phase-in period around block funding and that although both her district and the Burnaby district were in receipt of a special purpose grant, the amount that went to Richmond was a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and that was significantly less than Burnaby received. I had delayed the full implementation for a year. This year special purpose grants are gone -- it's a more level field for funding for the two districts that you happen to be comparing.
We have made changes over the last couple of years that have acknowledged rapidly growing districts. Richmond is continuing to grow. It's one of the big growth districts in the area, but it's not growing as rapidly as Surrey, for example, or Burnaby, so some of the differences that we see are related to the growth patterns.
I have said before -- and I won't take a lot of time; you may want to go back to look at the debate -- that we have established a finance advisory committee and a technical review committee to continue working on efficiencies, the challenges of growing districts, economies of scale, and issues that will relate to special education and English-as-an-additional-language. Your district was one of the districts that benefited from a new program last year for districts that are receiving a large number of English-as-an-additional-language students. Getting them into the system, appropriately assessed and placed in classes was a burden where there were a large number of them. I'm pleased to let you know, if you weren't aware of this, that there was $548,000 in added English-as-additional-language support for Richmond last year. That's based on an adjustment made after those youngsters are identified and the programs are in place. Your district received some special assistance as a result, and that program continues this year. So if Richmond continues to have that special need as a result of where its new students are coming from, the support will be available in the '93-94 year as well.
Sometimes we talk about an additional program, and we may think that that's all. But I want to note that every student who is identified in your district in terms of English-as-an-additional-language, and where there's a program provided for them, is funded through the regular block formula. So the additional funds are on top of the regular funds that are part of the block funding.
Yes, we will continue. I once read a report on all the Education ministers, going back 25 years. The one thing that was constant in their vision, their work and their focus was that education finance and funding was an issue for all of them. So we'll be talking about this next year in estimates too.
L. Reid: Certainly the minister's comments are well-taken. I acknowledge with gratitude the dollars that have flowed to Richmond for the additional programming needed to support what is happening in that school district. I believe the Richmond School District is doing a wondrous job of delivering those programs under very difficult circumstances. So again, my acknowledgments for that.
We have to look at where we are today in terms of the historical disparity that has existed and whether indeed that is going to be rectified. You made mention of additional committees looking at that. Will they report out at some point? As there may always be historical disparities, will we see a conclusion to the reporting process so we can put that disparity to rest and move forward based on a new set of criteria? I think that is what the Richmond School District is looking for, and I know it's very much what educators are looking for in terms of a rational plan. Once they understand the plan, I think they'd be happier to proceed.
[ Page 5351 ]
Hon. A. Hagen: We have made changes over the past couple of years, as I've just noted. The committees that are established, which follow from the recommendation of the funding review panel, are looking at some of the major issues that you're talking about. We have a technical group working on the distribution, and their mandate is to report to me in time for us to consider those recommendations for the next fiscal year. So yes, there is a time frame, and the major issues that people have raised will be before the committee. There will then be technical work on how those recommendations might in fact be accomplished.
[11:45]
It is important to note that this is an evolutionary process. One of the things I remember very well is that through the eighties we had a constant, sudden set of decisions. Constant and sudden seem almost an oxymoron, but they were constant and they were sudden, and changes happened without any planning and forethought. I am determined to work those through. What I would like to do -- and I think you would support it -- is to look at a system that would give us some breathing room for two or three years to know that this is good. Your critic has talked about multi-year funding. I support that concept. Looking at the way in which we manage our block is something I would like to see in place for two or three years and then look at it again.
That's the goal, and we are going to do our very best. A lot of people are prepared to provide us with good advice. I know that the issues of your particular district will be represented in those studies and discussions and recommendations.
L. Reid: I want to speak broadly on whether or not there's going to be an ability to tax locally at any time, in terms of how it might dramatically impact upon alternative programming -- i.e., is there a provincial policy for alternative programs that a district may offer? I'm speaking specifically of the Montessori program. There certainly seems to be support in particular districts for that type of programming, and in other districts there seems to be limited access to criteria or parameters for that kind of service delivery. Could you today give some umbrella, some framework, in terms of whether or not there is going to be a provincial policy for including Montessori in the province's school districts?
Hon. A. Hagen: I'll try to be brief, because some of this has been canvassed by your colleagues. In terms of specific programs, the funding is based on 80 percent for provincial core and 20 percent for local decisions. There are districts, for instance, that have Montessori programs as a part of their local decision-making.
On the taxation issue, to briefly reiterate what I've said, the funding review didn't come to a consensus recommendation. Taxation policy is a policy of the Minister of Finance. It is therefore -- not to dodge the question -- future policy, and at this stage there isn't a clear consensus. There is some other policy work that we need to finish -- the report coming out of the Korbin commission being one of them -- as we look ahead to some of those important discussions. But that is ongoing, and I know it will be in your caucus and in our government. I am sure we will be dealing with those questions. They're very important policy initiatives that we need to put in the broad context as we move to a system that is stable and predictable over a number of years.
L. Reid: You're absolutely correct. A lot of these issues will evolve over time. A number of folks who come to my office are looking for some kind of policy and, if there's not a policy in place, some kind of time line as to when there might be. Will it ever be the expectation of this government that Montessori will be available in all districts, or will it for all time be something that is a locally determined program? Would the government produce policy that, if it doesn't determine such a program, puts in place expectations and criteria if a district were to go in that direction?
There certainly seems to be confusion out there now in terms of which districts may proceed, and I understand and respect the notion that it is a locally determined decision. In fact, my district has made that decision, with some reservations -- i.e., that we don't have it across the board. Certainly it is the wish of the community and the Montessori parents to put that in place. Are there any guidelines for districts that may wish to explore Montessori? Is there some resource that can be put at their disposal?
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm going to speak rather broadly about what I might call alternative programs, because we're really talking about a variety of ways in which children may have their learning provided. I don't want to get into a discussion about a particular program, although I know the program of which you're speaking, and I know that in the district where it is a part of the regular school program, it's highly successful.
We have a core set of expectations around curriculum that is a part of a school system. Historically, our school system is fundamentally designed to provide for local decision-making. Our funding structure and our curriculum structure are set with that in mind. I really think that it is a matter of local communities making those decisions. A Montessori program has a teacher, a classroom and a program that is consistent with the broad program required under the School Act and our regulations. There's nothing preventing that from happening in your school district, and that is consistent with any alternative programs that fit within the mandate and the curriculum requirements of the public school system.
However, I like the idea that you speak about -- ways in which the system can cooperate within itself, if you like. We're looking more often at ways in which we can assist in that regard. It's an evolutionary thing for us at this stage too, because we've got the big system and a lot of work around our standard curriculum and so on. But the exchange between your district and other districts about how that's done, parents looking at that kind of advocacy that can occur.... All of that is very
[ Page 5352 ]
much a part of the autonomy and the local decision-making.
Hon. Chair, noting the hour, I would like to move at this time that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:15 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome back to Committee A. Just before we call the minister, I will make a couple of comments as to the configuration of Committee A, the supply committee. We have tried to mirror the House as closely as possible with the configuration of seating and the arrangements for advisers for the minister. If we remember, last session we had the minister in this corner; a certain amount of congestion happened with advisers for the minister and the minister's staff. So we've done some slight modifications, and I think we'll find that it will fit very well within the legislative processes.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
On vote 40: minister's office, $404,772
The Chair: Hon. Minister, we are still within the legislative chambers and the rules are that we speak from our feet.
Hon. D. Miller: You want me to stand up?
The Chair: Yes, please. Thank you very much. Hon. Minister, on vote 40.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I should say first of all, Mr. Chairman, since we are breaking new ground, that might be one of the areas people are going to look at. Either that or get some legs for this desk. But fair enough, Mr. Chairman.
I'll just make a few opening remarks about the operation of the ministry before we proceed to what I hope will be a very productive and informative set of estimates. Mr. Chairman, the voted estimates of the Forest Service are comprised of vote 40, which is the operation of my office -- which by the way is, I think, underbudget -- vote 41, the administration and delivery of Forest Service programs, and vote 42, the operation of fire-suppression activities in British Columbia's forests. The expenditure requested for the Forest Service in these votes is $546 million. When combined with special account expenditures, the overall total for the Forest Service is $641 million. Revenues for '93-94 are forecast to be $913 million, which is about $223 million higher than last year's forecast, and really results from the current favourable market for wood products and our ambitious small business forest enterprise program.
Our government is continuing to ensure the renewal of our valuable forest lands. With hundreds of communities in the province dependent on our forests, their long-term future relies on effective forest renewal. To that end the government will continue to ensure that private sector reforestation obligations are met. We will also catch up on the backlog of areas that were not satisfactorily reforested in the past. The overall quality and value of many of these forests will be improved through intensive silviculture treatments such as spacing and pruning.
Under protection, last year was the third-worst fire season in history, in terms of the number of fires. The potential for a catastrophic fire season was very high. Fortunately our highly trained firefighting crews were extremely successful in aggressively attacking wildfires early, thereby keeping costs and losses to a minimum. As we move into another fire season, the low levels of rain and snow this winter mean we will be facing another bad fire season unless a significant amount of rain falls soon. To maintain and enhance our world-class standards, the Forest Service is currently training more than 900 firefighters for this coming fire season. We will also continue to maintain the health of our established forests by controlling damage caused by insects and disease.
The ministry will deliver an ambitious program in support of small-scale forest operations through the small business forest enterprise program. This will involve the sale of an estimated 9.1 million cubic metres of timber with a dividend to the government of $72.2 million. Also part of the small business program is a special project examining alternative harvesting systems and log marketing. With this project we will explore new ways to harvest timber and increase the ministry's knowledge of log marketing.
There's a balancing in the economy, the environment and social values, which is a pretty important topic these days. But our forest and range resources are increasingly important to all British Columbians for
[ Page 5353 ]
social and economic reasons. These resources are vital to the timber processing, livestock and recreation industries. Equally important are visual beauty, water, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness and the recreation opportunities our forests provide. The government is committed to ensuring that both our economy and our environment are sustainable and healthy. To do so we must not only manage our forests more effectively, but we must also find a fair balance between the economic, environmental and social values our forests create. Therefore we have embarked on key initiatives that will involve the Forest Service, other agencies and the public in establishing that balance.
First, existing Forest Service programs will be supplemented by the Build B.C. special account to create job opportunities now and in the future through a variety of forest investments. This investment in our forests will help British Columbians by providing short-term jobs and comprehensive training which will lead to long-term jobs in communities throughout our province.
The second initiative is to achieve sustainable forest management through integrated resource management and sound forest practices. Through the timber supply review, the Forest Service will continue to update the inventory situation in all timber supply areas. The information will be summarized and released for public comment and will assist the chief forester in determining allowable annual cut. To ensure sound forest practices, the Forest Service is also developing a comprehensive forest practices code in consultation with other provincial resource agencies. The government will be releasing a discussion paper on the code and provide ample opportunity for public comment. As part of this initiative the Forest Service will also review the means to effectively monitor forest use and enforce compliance with legislative and contractual conditions.
The third initiative is to maintain this government's commitment to fully involve the public in land-use and resource decisions. Defining the appropriate allocation of forest lands is one of the greatest challenges in developing a consensus among all British Columbians as to how our forests should be managed.
The Commission on Resources and Environment was created to develop a land-use strategy for the province through a regional planning process. A new subregional land and resource-management planning process developed by the Forest Service and other resource-management agencies will support CORE. This process encourages participation by all public and government stakeholders to ensure that all resource values are considered in forest management.
The Forest Service and other agencies are participating in a protected-area strategy that will assist CORE and the government in making land-use decisions to sustain our biologically diverse forest and old-growth ecosystems. Study areas have been identified where preservation options will be maintained during the review process.
Aboriginal peoples must begin to enjoy more of the economic benefits our forests provide, and become more fully involved in their management. Accordingly, the government has created the First Nations Forestry Council to help increase aboriginal participation in the forest sector. In addition, we have recently established a forest sector strategy committee to advise the government on possible courses to steer the forest sector during these tough times.
Hon. Chair, these initiatives will help the government to make decisions on how we will use our forests in the future. They will enable the government to adapt our forest management to meet the challenges we face today and to set a course that will balance the current and future needs of all British Columbians. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to now try to respond the best I can to any questions that hon. members may have.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. Just before I recognize the hon. critic, would you please introduce your staff for the committee and for Hansard.
Hon. D. Miller: To my right is my deputy, Phil Halkett, and we also have the deputy chief forester, Bronwen Beedle.
W. Hurd: Thank you. I appreciate those opening remarks from the Minister of Forests.
It is interesting to compare remarks in this year's estimates with those offered by the minister in the last fiscal year. I note a great deal more optimism being expressed in last year's opening remarks. It was the same kind of discussion: "Our government is committed to fair, balanced and open forest management that builds on trust and creates less conflict."
Reviewing the Hansard from last year, he said that another commitment that the government is committed to is developing a forest practices code." The objective of the code is to ensure that the management of our forests is based on sound ecological practices" -- that achieve high standards of forest stewardship.
Mr. Chairman, as we look back on the last year, we can express our concern that had the code been in place during the last fiscal year, some of the difficulties and some of the public challenges that have occurred not only in British Columbia but in North America might have been avoided. I'm interested in reading these estimates.... I'm looking at the ones last year, but they certainly lead into the ones this year. It goes on: "...will ensure that my staff get more mud on their boots. The Forest Service will make 150 percent more inspections this year than in 1989-90 in all phases of forest management, from planning the harvest through to ensuring effective reforestation."
As we look back at the last year and look forward to the current fiscal year, there has, regrettably, been a change in public perception of managing the province's forests. There has been an international campaign that's focused negative attention on the forest management practices in British Columbia. There's been a great deal of attention paid to an audit by the auditor general on forest practices in British Columbia. And as we pursue the set of estimates for the government, the one issue that we'll be dealing with, I think continually, is the monitoring and the level of compliance that is being exercised by the Minister of Forests and by the ministry
[ Page 5354 ]
because of this public concern that exists about the Ministry of Forests.
So, Mr. Chairman, with those brief remarks, perhaps we can discuss some of the issues that were raised by the auditor general when he looked at the Ministry of Forests value-for-money audit, which is dated 1991. I think it's interesting that the auditor general at that time noted that we had concluded overall that the ministry's monitoring practices did not give adequate assurances that forest companies would meet ministry requirements to manage, protect and conserve Crown forest resources. There are significant provincewide deficiencies in the ministry's monitoring of road building, maintenance, harvesting and silviculture.
D. Lovick: When was the audit done?
W. Hurd: The member asked when the audit was done, and certainly the audit may go back to 1990, Mr. Chairman. But the opposition has reviewed the spending estimates for this ministry over the past two or three years, and there really has been no significant change in the amount of resources devoted to monitoring these kinds of forest practices. So certainly a question would then have to be raised about the current set of estimates. What specifically is in this set of spending priorities by the minister that would assure the people of the province that, in fact, the concerns raised by the auditor general have been addressed; and that the significant provincewide deficiencies which were identified as recently as three fiscal years ago are, in fact, being addressed, or are going to be addressed, in this set of estimates?
[10:30]
Hon. D. Miller: Well, hon. Chairman, the issue of monitoring, auditing and ensuring that the practices that we require to be followed are, indeed, followed is an important and complex one. Just to give some background -- and I think it's important with respect to the auditor general's report -- the Forest Service underwent what I call "a major body blow" in 1983, in the sense that we lost about 2,000 employees at a time, quite frankly, when we were not doing the kind of work that meets the standards of today. The government of the day, in my view, made a very incorrect move. They made the decision that the Forest Service would no longer do this monitoring work, that they would simply turn that responsibility over to the forest companies. It has been described in various ways. I guess you know the classic of the fox guarding the henhouse. Nonetheless, that significant event happened in the early eighties. We then proceeded into an era that in my view required not only the application of higher standards but also dealt with the emerging issues of the environment and the requirement that the public was imposing in terms of having better practices and all the rest.
That has been a significant challenge not only for the Forest Service but for other resource agencies in the field. It's not just the Forest Service, for example, that is concerned about forest practices; clearly agencies like the federal Department of Fisheries and the Ministry of the Environment and others are equally concerned and have some role to play there.
That brings us to a question. It's probably fair to say that there will always be the potential to allege that there are not enough people in the field to monitor and to audit, and I think that may always be the case. Certainly the auditor general has identified that as a concern in his report. It seems to me the question is much larger than simply noting that there needs to be more. The question, it seems to me, is how you accomplish the necessary work of auditing and monitoring and at the same time remain cost effective. I don't want to get into a real sparring match, although I'm quite happy to do it if the occasion demands it. But I don't think it was that long ago that we were subject to a fair torrent from the opposition benches saying that we shouldn't be spending so much money, that we should reduce the budget, that we should cut back even further.
I think I noted in a speech I gave in the House that when it came time for estimates, that very opposition that criticized the budget as being too big and spending too much money would indeed come into estimates and demand that we spend even more money. These kinds of contradictions are a fact of political life, Mr. Chairman. The fact is, though, that we will never be able to, in my view, afford to hire all of the policemen that some people think may be required to monitor all of the activity that takes place. We have to look at innovation. We have taken, I think, some good measures, and we will be taking some more. For example, last year when we discovered that there had been violations of the fish/forestry guidelines that apply to harvesting on the coast of British Columbia, we took decisive action. I called the CEOs of the major companies in to a meeting in Vancouver, and I literally laid the wood on. I said: "This behaviour is unacceptable. You will deliver to me a plan for remediating that damage. It will be signed off by an RPF and it will be delivered to me by a certain time, and beyond that, that work will be completed by a certain time." This was the first time, I think, that the Minister of Forests in this province has ever done anything like that.
We've ordered new audits. They're continuing now in new areas of the province -- in the Queen Charlottes on the coast of British Columbia. We'll take the same kind of action if we discover that there have been violations of those fish forestry guidelines. Ultimately we will have a forest practices act which will codify all of the practices, the codes of practice, the field practices that are currently applicable to harvesting in British Columbia. That act will, for the first time, prescribe specific penalties for violations. I think that that will tend to improve the operating practices in the field.
I should also say, and I think it's important to note, that one of the conclusions of the Tripp report or the Tripp audit was that where the practices are followed, they work. The fisheries-forestry guidelines, which took a number of years to develop and have since been refined, were developed in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment and my ministry, the forest sector. One of the conclusions of the Tripp audit is that when you use those guidelines, they work. They do
[ Page 5355 ]
protect fish strains. So the message is clear to the operating companies in this province: you had better follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, ultimately we will have a forest practices act in this province that will specify what the penalties are for any breach of the rules. In the interim, while we're waiting for that, we think it's important to put that discussion paper out. I can tell you that as the Minister of Forests I am quite prepared, and I've shown that I'm quite prepared, to take decisive action where I find those rules have been breached. Beyond that, I think the forest companies are also aware that we live in a different time and that the practices of the past are not acceptable.
So we will try to do the best we can. The Forest Service is continuing to do monitoring and auditing. We have guidelines for what we expect at the district level in terms of the amount and frequency of audits. My staff know full well that their job is to apply the practices that, if applied, result in first-class forestry. There are lots of examples where that's happening. So I've tried to broaden the topic to describe what I think are some of the difficulties with respect to the issue. I hope that satisfied the question.
W. Hurd: Certainly the opposition understands that trying to do more with less money is a laudable objective. The concern we have, however, is that B.C.'s forest practices are not subject to the concerns of British Columbians alone. When a clear gap in policy is allowed to exist that creates the parameters of the Tripp report.... Widespread abuses or a failure to properly monitor fish stream habitat created an impression, not only in British Columbia but also around the continent, that the level of monitoring wasn't acceptable. The opposition notes that the professional foresters in this province have brought forth a code of ethics which will deal harshly with their own members in the event they are unable or unwilling to meet certain ethical guidelines for their profession.
My question to the minister is: given the fact that we don't have the resources -- which is apparently what he's saying -- to significantly improve our level of monitoring, is he concerned that any of his staff, particularly the professional foresters, may be placed in a situation where due to the ministry's failure or inability to fund the levels of compliance and enforcement, they may face some disciplinary action or request for action to be taken by the professional foresters' association? I'm thinking specifically of the example in the Arrow Lakes forest district, where the professional foresters' association is involved in investigating a complaint. Is the minister concerned about his staff being placed in a position vis-�-vis their professional body if indeed, because of a lack of resources, they are not able to go into the field and examine every preharvest silvicultural prescription, for example, or some other type of activity that requires a sign-off by a professional forester?
Hon. D. Miller: I want to say a couple of things about that. First of all, in reverse order, let's deal with the Arrow Lakes issue and the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions. There was absolutely no failure to deal with the land as it should have been dealt with. Those lands have been reforested, and they measure up to our standards. The problem that arose in the Arrow Lakes was one of implementing a new system.
In 1987, as a result of the countervailing duty action brought by the United States, British Columbia made a significant change in a number of economic areas. We significantly increased our stumpage system, for example. We brought in the comparative-value stumpage system to replace the old system. At the same time, we made a requirement that companies henceforth would be responsible for reforestation. We brought in a requirement for companies to submit a preharvest silvicultural prescription, which must be approved before harvesting can take place.
During the transition from the old system to the new system, there was a glitch in the paper. The PHSPs that should have been signed for those districts apparently weren't. That's a paper problem. The fundamental issue dealing with the land base is that those harvested areas were indeed reforested to our standards. I'll take you onto any site you care to look at that falls under those categories in the Arrow Lakes and prove it to you if you have any doubts about that question. So let's dispense with the Arrow Lakes as an issue of failure to manage the land properly and put it in its proper perspective: a glitch in paper. I understand these things happen from time to time. Maybe members of the party that was then in government might want to deal with how they could happen. But nonetheless, it was a paper problem.
Secondly, we'll go back to the issue of the RPFs. The RPFs are indeed recognizing they are going to have to take on an increasingly more responsible role if, in my view, they are to maintain and enhance their own credibility. I think they can play a significant role. They have proposed, and the government will be proceeding with, legislation to give registered professional foresters more authority and responsibility. I think it's going to be a challenge for them, because foresters work not only for government; they work for private companies. Increasingly they're going to have to identify themselves as having an independent role. I referred to the Tripp report and the subsequent actions I took as minister. I said to the companies: "You are now required...." This was not because I had the legislative authority to do it, but because the companies wanted to cooperate. I said: "You will submit a plan to me signed off by a registered professional forester." There is currently no requirement in the Forest Act for that to take place. I receive phone calls from registered professional foresters around this province applauding me for doing that. They said: "Finally somebody has said that we have a significant role to play."
So we will be proceeding with legislation to grant increased authority and responsibility to registered professional foresters, and I think that is a good thing. I hope all members support that and that we get speedy passage of that legislation. I think it will not only improve the practices that take place, but will enhance and improve the position of registered professional foresters as custodians or guardians of our forest resource.
[ Page 5356 ]
Finally I'd like to say that I think we can go beyond the standard things that people always say -- hire more policemen to make sure that everybody is doing the right thing -- and look at how we can involve people who work in our forests in an increasing role in terms of what happens out there. Whether they are chokermen or machine operators or whatever their role as a forest worker is, it seems to me that they have a stake in what happens. As I recall, when I worked in the industry, workers take a leading role in the issue of safety. If they're working in an industrial setting and see something that's unsafe, it's not uncommon for the workers to say: "We're not going to allow that condition to exist. That has to be fixed." Sometimes extreme action is taken. They say: "We're not going to work until that's fixed."
[10:45]
I think the same attitude should prevail out in the woods. The forest workers should be in the vanguard of saying: "We know what the rules are; we know what's acceptable. If somebody is telling me to do something that's contrary to forest practices, I'm not going to do it." I think working people, through extensive training and involvement in forest practices, can play a significant role in ensuring that the right things are done out in the forest land base.
So we're moving. Since the original audit by the auditor general, we've added more staff. We've taken more innovative approaches. I, as the Minister of Forests, have taken a very public tough position with respect to what I expect out there. It's sometimes hard to measure, but I think we are making progress and moving in the right direction.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the minister about one aspect of the testimony before the Public Accounts Committee, in which the minister's deputy was asked about the kinds of inspections that occur on active logging sites before the site is logged, during the logging and afterward. It's interesting to read into the record one of the steps that was described by the minister in terms of monitoring active logging sites in the province.
"The fifth step is the inspection of active logging. This is the only aspect of our process on the harvesting side that the office audited. Field inspections are required at three points during the logging of a site: the initial inspection shortly before logging begins, interim inspections -- that's one or more inspections while logging on the block is underway -- and a final inspection shortly after logging finishes. As has been indicated, the Forest Service has the authority under the Forest Act to suspend logging operations for noncompliance with ministry standards or cutting authorities."
Can the minister assure this committee and the people of the province that those inspections are occurring on all active cut-blocks in the province? Can he tell us whether there have been incidents in the past year of -- or whether he anticipates in the future -- active suspensions of logging operations while this process is unfolding, so that the public can be assured that if those field inspections, which are the only ones done by his ministry, do uncover serious deficiencies in what was committed to by the logging contractor or the company, he will suspend the active operation until those types of commitments are made?
Hon. D. Miller: I've indicated that we have added staff since the auditor general's report. We do conduct extensive field monitoring in addition to the auditing, which is done on a spot basis. I presume that system is followed as in accounting, if I'm not mistaken. We all fill out our income tax forms and occasionally get a letter from the income tax department saying: "We ought to take a closer look at you." They do that with companies as well.
In trying to manage a system, you could hire, in the case of the income tax department, one individual to police every other Canadian. We'd all be employed poring over tax returns to make sure that everybody was honest.
The system of auditing is well established. In spot auditing, people don't know where it's going to take place. We employ that in a variety of areas. We do the monitoring that's required. In the final analysis, if the question is whether I'm prepared to take action to suspend when I find it's warranted, the answer is yes; I don't have any problem. The more complex answer is that there has never been any flexibility developed in this province with respect to trying to police infractions. The option available is suspension. What do you do when the violation is so small that suspension clearly isn't warranted? But if the question is whether if we discover conditions that warrant suspension we will enact suspension, you can count on it.
W. Hurd: I must say that the minister's commitment to take action once the deficiencies are pointed out is reassuring indeed. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that these on-site inspections were a commitment that the deputy made in Public Accounts testimony as having been made after the auditor general had released his report condemning forest practices or monitoring levels in this province. He advised the Public Accounts Committee that he had enacted these initiatives as a response to the concerns raised.
I guess the question I'm asking is: when we're dealing with the Tripp report, which detailed serious damage to salmon-spawning streams in the province, what good does it do to have the minister take action when in fact a salmon-spawning stream may have been irreparably damaged for ten years? What good does it do to come down hard on the companies then, when his own deputy minister made a commitment to the Public Accounts Committee that the inspections were occurring as the logging was proceeding and that if there was serious damage to fish-spawning streams in the province, action would be taken?
It's a bit troubling to the opposition that the commitment under this set of estimates seems to be to take decisive action once the transgression has occurred. But when it comes to assuring the people of the province that while the fish streams may be being damaged or erosion may be occurring.... We will deal with it when it becomes a serious problem. I'd certainly
[ Page 5357 ]
welcome a commitment from the minister that the commitment made by his deputy to the Public Accounts Committee is going to be enthusiastically pursued in this current fiscal year and that these inspections that were committed are going to occur on every site. If we end up in a situation, which was identified by the Tripp report, where there is damage occurring to salmon-spawning streams in a number of cut-blocks on southern Vancouver Island.... If you look at the report, you will realize that it was a widespread problem.
The people of the province would appreciate a commitment that as these committed inspections are ongoing, decisive action will be taken by the minister when the streams may be in jeopardy, rather than facing a massive clean-up bill. When we're dealing with a fishery resource -- which is, after all, an integrated fact of forest management -- that can be seriously damaged on a long-term basis even though decisive action may be taken by the minister when problems are discovered.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure what the member's point is, hon. Chair.
W. Hurd: My point is that the minister's deputy has made a commitment to on-site inspections during three phases of logging. He made that commitment after the auditor general released his report, which detailed the serious deficiencies in monitoring.
The point being made by the opposition, in light of the Tripp report and that commitment of inspection, is that the minister has told us he has taken action on the Tripp report, but unfortunately, if the on-site inspections had been made as committed by his own deputy, maybe the damage to the fish-spawning streams could have been averted. It's a fairly simple point.
What assurances can the people of the province have when these commitments are made? In fact, the minister is still saying: "If I find out there's damage, I'll take decisive action." Wouldn't he concede that it's a bit late to do that after the damage has occurred? Where is the commitment to meet the three on-site inspections that were committed by his deputy minister to the Public Accounts Committee?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm somewhat disappointed, having spoken at length about the complexities of managing our forests in terms of the issues of monitoring and compliance. I've spoken about efforts I've taken and what the government has taken to improve the situation. The member has failed to grasp any of it. I suppose I'm just going to have to not speak as long and not try to be as comprehensive in my explanations. That's unfortunate, because given this less formal setting -- the cameras aren't on -- we could maybe get into some good and useful dialogue. But perhaps that's not to be the case. I think I've responded to all the questions that have been raised.
W. Hurd: Returning to the issue of these on-site inspections -- which I've identified as the only ones done by the ministry, the only time they actually leave the office where they push paper and do whatever else -- the only time they get out into the field is to do these three inspections. Because there is such widespread concern about monitoring and compliance in the province, perhaps the minister would welcome the opportunity to tell the committee exactly what his staff do when they go out and undertake these three inspections, which he assures us are occurring on every cutblock in this province.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I'll be interested to get Hansard.
Returning to the Ministry of Forests value-for-money audits, we can ask about the method the ministry uses to systematically collect and organize information. The opposition notes that there is a modest funding increase for inventory collection in the province. Perhaps the minister would welcome this opportunity to describe the progress of the inventory of the forest resource in the timber supply areas in the province and how he intends -- with the little money that has been allocated for inventory -- to meet the commitment he made last year to provide a comprehensive audit of every timber supply area in the province.
Hon. D. Miller: The member should be fully aware of the process that's underway in my ministry to the timber supply review through the chief forester to examine each of the planning units -- the TSAs and the TFLs -- and to establish a harvest level that is considered to be sustainable. We are proceeding with some speed on that program, which is targeted to be completed by the end of '94. It is indeed an issue that for too long has not been dealt with, in my view. Most of the annual harvest rates were set more than a decade ago and do not account for a lot of the changing values, standards and forest practices that the member was speaking about earlier. I think we are proceeding on schedule to deal with those issues.
It's not an easy task. It's one that has caused considerable concern in this province, as the annual harvest rates, in some cases, have been reduced fairly significantly. We are going through probably the most traumatic time, in terms of change, that the forest sector has ever gone through in this province. It's a very difficult job. I am pleased at the appreciation of the enormity of the task that's been displayed by forest companies, forest workers and the people in the forest communities. People realize that none of this is easy to deal with, but we can't hide our heads in the sand and refuse to deal with it. So I think we are proceeding extremely well with respect to that.
I know the member who is questioning me has been critical of that, suggesting that we need not do some of that, and that we shouldn't reduce harvest rates. I don't know what to make of that, other than to say that we've got some of the best technical people in the world working to establish a harvest rate that will be sustainable over time in this province, and which will reflect those important values that I talked about in my opening statement.
[11:00]
[ Page 5358 ]
W. Hurd: I think the question was more or less oriented toward the actual numbers in the estimates. The opposition had a chance to review the executive summary by Peat Marwick Thorne -- a respected accounting firm of the provincial government -- which dealt with the issue of resource management during the first term of this government. It noted that information required to properly manage provincial resources has not always been generated, resulting in some decisions that are not fully informed. Interestingly enough, the Peat Marwick report made note that the province will have to incur additional costs to develop adequate resource inventory information. So there was an anticipation there that more money would have to be found to deal with an issue that the minister has correctly identified as vital. Without an adequate inventory, you really don't have an idea of what is sustainable or what manufacturing plants can be sustained.
In reviewing this set of spending estimates, the opposition notes that there appears to have been a marginal reduction in the amount of expenditure for inventory in the province. Perhaps the minister could explain how he intends to accelerate this review of timber supply areas in the province with less money, recognizing the fact that while the taxpayers may appreciate that he can do more with less, the importance of getting an adequate inventory would seem to imply that there might be a deceleration of that critical inventory review.
Hon. D. Miller: I didn't catch the nuance of whether the member was supporting or complaining about the fact that there is less money. Perhaps he may wish to respond. Although it's not my job to ask questions, I'm just curious.
The larger problem is not so much that we don't have an inventory of the timber on a provincewide basis. I don't really think that's central to our problem. I think there are also lots of misconceptions about timber inventory. Some people look at it as an issue of: let's go out and count the number of trees; then we can deduce how many we can cut down in a given year. That's the process of establishing the harvest rate. Nothing could be further from the truth; that's not how you do it at all. By and large, I think the timber inventory is reasonably accurate on a provincewide basis. The real issue that you're dealing with, when you come back to the issue that I think is most important -- which is setting the annual harvest rate in any planning unit -- is what the constraints are on harvesting.
Frequently people tend to confuse the issues. The constraints on harvesting are really the critical factors in determining the annual harvest rates. Apart from the timber profile and the capability of the land to grow certain types of trees at a certain rate, what are the things that you have to consider that restrain or reduce the amount of timber you can harvest? Although I talk extensively about these issues, there's still a lack of general understanding in the province about them.
For example, people talk about how they don't like large, progressive clearcuts. Fair enough; I agree with them. I think that's not something that's desirable. So in response to that, here on the coast -- I'll talk about the coast -- we have reduced the size of those clearcuts to the 40- to 60-hectare range on average. The cost of reducing those clearcut sizes, of imposing that new standard on the land base, means that there is less timber to harvest.
Look at wildlife. The fact that we now plan more intensively for the needs of wildlife, that we look at winter range, that we look at leave strips and that we look at corridors so that animals can migrate between standing timber.... The fact that we consider the needs of wildlife far better than we ever did before means that there is less timber to harvest.
Fisheries-forestry guidelines, which we were talking about not long ago.... The fact that we apply those fisheries-forestry guidelines to the landscape means that you cannot harvest as many trees. And I could go on and on. When all of the issues that people hold dear and think of as important are applied to forest planning and to the landscape, it reduces the amount of timber that's available for harvesting. In my view, that is the critical area with respect to the broad subject of inventory. On a broad basis, the state of our inventory is not bad, but applying these new standards and having more information about these new standards is the real crux of the matter. That's why we put some money in last year that was jointly shared between myself -- I actually had a very modest amount -- the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries who have interests in the land base, including Tourism, to see if we couldn't get more information to assist us in the kind of planning needed to arrive at new harvest rates that were necessary after applying these standards. The member clearly seems to think they are necessary as well.
W. Hurd: I don't think the issue that I raised necessarily required the all-encompassing answer from the minister, as much as I appreciate his commitment to inventory. Our question was a little more basic. We noted a commitment by the minister last year to accelerate this inventory analysis of standing timber in the timber supply areas as if it was a major commitment of the ministry. Yet we note an actual reduction in the amount of voted expenditures. So the question remains: how do you accelerate a program and spend less money? It's an issue that invites debate, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to defy the logic of all known government enterprises if this ministry can actually do more for less. I would expect the minister to welcome the opportunity to describe something that doesn't seem to be happening in virtually any other ministry of government.
Hon. D. Miller: It's certainly an interesting question. I suppose that an analogy might be: how do you on the one hand criticize a budget for spending too much, and on the other hand criticize a budget for spending too little? I'm as perplexed as the hon. member, Mr. Chairman.
W. Hurd: The opposition suspects that the methodology being used is an actual reduction in the amount of work being done for the same amount of money, but
[ Page 5359 ]
since the minister has been offered an opportunity to explain it and has declined, we'll assume that his ministry, unlike any other, is able to spend less money and actually accelerate a program.
Just dealing with the inventory issue, however, the executive summary by the Peat Marwick Thorne accountants noted that some of the issues the minister has raised -- like setting aside lands for urban developments, parks and aboriginal land claims -- will affect government costs and revenues in a number of ways that should be anticipated. Can the minister identify any vote in his ministry for this current fiscal year which would in fact enable him to meet that commitment -- to assess the impact on employment, for example, in forest-dependent communities and the revenues that might accrue to the Crown for issues such as stumpage, which clearly will flow out of the decision by the minister to reduce annual allowable cuts in anticipation of this inventory process proceeding over the next five years?
Hon. D. Miller: There are some budget moneys under vote 41, but I'm not quite clear on the member's question. Is he really suggesting that the Ministry of Forests needs to do the economic work in terms of what adjustment programs might be used, for example, to help mitigate against reductions in the annual allowable cut, or other factors that might reduce the economic activity in the forest sector? Is that the area you want to get into?
W. Hurd: That's sort of the area we want to discuss, because the inventory analysis and the chief forester's cut reductions obviously will have an impact on the rents collected by the Crown and on the revenues available. The Peat Marwick Thorne study really recommended that the government had to get a handle on this and determine the impacts of a reduction in the annual allowable harvest. I guess the question I'm asking is more of a process question: is it the ministry's responsibility to provide information to the Ministry of Finance about what it anticipates might be a reduction in provincial revenues, or is the mandate of the chief forester and the minister simply to try to produce a harvest and a rate of regeneration that's in balance, and the revenue shortfall that may occur as a result of that is totally the responsibility of the Minister of Finance? Or does his ministry have a role in anticipating the reduction in revenues that would accrue to the Crown?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do. I think we do a very good job of it as well, in terms of having a good ability to understand the forest sector and the revenue implications of any scenario. Just let me say at the outset that despite the very difficult changes taking place in the forest sector, members should be aware that under our harvesting rules, more timber will be harvested this year than last year. I suspect that that statement will be equally true for 1994. There will be more timber harvested in 1993-94 than there was in 1991-92. Clearly the reduced harvest in the last couple of years was a reflection of the market conditions for forest products.
Pulp prices have been down. I forget what the actual capacity rates were on the pulp side, but I think it may have been 85 percent. Lumber prices were not good all year, although generally '92 wasn't a bad year for lumber prices; '91 wasn't as good. So that's reflected in the amount of wood that can be harvested.
According to the cut control provisions contained in the Forest Act, companies can harvest plus-or-minus 50 percent of their allocation in any given year, but over the five-year period it must be within 10 percent. The reason behind that, having allocated timber on a long-term basis, is that we -- and previous governments, those who drew up those rules -- have said that we recognize that the forest products business has tended to fluctuate; it goes in cycles. Despite the fact that you might be in a very difficult year, our minimum requirement is that you harvest at least 50 percent, that you maintain at least that level of economic activity, recognizing that in a very good year, as we're in right now, you might want to take 150 percent. In other words, to capitalize on those very good lumber markets you might want to accelerate your harvest. So it does allow for that kind of fluctuation, and it does allow for recognition that the forest products business is, has been traditionally and, I suspect, will probably continue to be one that goes in cycles.
So I think we are quite capable of estimating what to predict in terms of price and stumpage, and clearly we've forecast a certain revenue this fiscal year which is significantly greater than last fiscal year -- over $200 million greater. That is our estimate of where things, on average, will be with respect to the price of forest products. I think the history of the ministry is very good with respect to those kinds of forecasts. I think we've generally been pretty bang on in terms of trying to predict what revenues will accrue through the sale of timber and, subsequently, the sale of forest products.
[11:15]
Maybe I should conclude on that. I will finally add that it's not an anomaly -- everything bears a relationship. Despite the fact that over time there will be a reduction in the yearly annual allowable harvest rate, it's pretty clear to me that the most significant factor driving the price of lumber has been the threat of scarcity of supply of timber. That's been brought about primarily because of the situation in Washington and Oregon, where lands have been withdrawn from production because of issues like the spotted owl and, secondarily, I would say, by the process we're going through here in British Columbia of examining those annual allowable harvest rates.
So to the extent that any good comes out of that -- and I think it's justifiable on its own basis, and it's necessary for British Columbia to establish that sustainable harvest rate -- it also has had a beneficial effect on the market side, which is clearly reflected in the significantly increased revenues we're forecasting this fiscal year as a result of increased stumpage rates, increased lumber prices and increased bid prices under the small business forest enterprise program.
W. Hurd: I guess that the opposition was after a somewhat broader assessment by the minister or by the
[ Page 5360 ]
Ministry of Finance on the impact of cut reductions. The minister will be aware that there's been a great deal of controversy, even emerging from the Peel commission about the rather draconian or serious impacts of what appear to be even a modest reduction in the amount of annual allowable cut.
I understand that a study has been done by the planning and statistics division -- I would assume that's in the Ministry of Forests -- about the impact of cut reductions. That study noted British Columbia community employment dependencies. There are over 200 communities in British Columbia that have better than a 50 percent dependency on the forest industry for their basic employment. That study has indicated the expected economic impact of selected timber harvest scenarios in British Columbia. This particular study identifies a 25 percent reduction in the annual allowable cut, which has been about the average for the various inventory reductions while the chief forester conducts his review over the next four years. This study indicates a loss of employment of 75,000 jobs as a result of a 25 percent reduction in the annual allowable harvest, which this study claims represents $1.9 billion in lost revenue to the treasury of British Columbia.
Obviously the minister would have given these kinds of doomsday statistics a considerable amount of thought. I'm wondering whether there's going to be any attempt in the next year to challenge those kinds of statistics, because we're dealing with what appears to be -- according to the planning and statistics division -- significant losses in revenue to the Crown and in employment. This is the type of information communities would appreciate having before these cut reductions are announced. I'm sure the minister would agree that there's a great deal of misinformation out there about the impact of these cut reductions, and I would think he would welcome the opportunity to comment on a potential loss of 75,000 jobs and a $1.9 billion reduction in revenues, if indeed that's the scenario we're dealing with.
An Hon. Member: Are these the same guys who think we shouldn't log the Clayoquot?
Deputy Chair: Order!
Hon. D. Miller: I think the study that the hon. member is referring to was done by someone else, not my ministry, so I won't comment on it.
Yesterday the chief forester announced a reduction of 11 percent in the Strathcona timber supply area as a result of our enacting section 170 of the Forest Act to protect those study areas prior to a decision being made. I've made it pretty clear that we're no longer going to play the game that's been played far too long in this province. I think I got into this fairly extensively last year in estimates or in debate on one of the pieces of legislation.
We're not going to try and kid ourselves any more in this province -- at least I'm not going to, as the Minister of Forests. I'll give you the straight goods. We're no longer going to take areas and put them aside as parks and then not consequently reduce the annual allowable cut and just go on pretending that those huge areas still contribute to the annual allowable cut and that we can still sail merrily along, cut it at an accelerated level, and the world's going to turn out fine. We're not going to do that. There's no more of that kind of attitude in the Ministry of Forests and in this government.
The fact is that when you take wood away, there is a price to pay. I said that very clearly yesterday. There is a cost in human terms. Real people are displaced by those decisions, and there is a cost in economic terms to the provincial economy. In the Clayoquot decision I think we're looking at a stumpage loss of about $7.6 million annually -- forever -- and we're looking at a loss out of the gross domestic product of some $46 million. That's not even touching the issues that I don't want to get into any kind of discussion on -- in terms of what compensation may be booted about in terms of that reduction.
There is an enormous cost to these decisions. I was surprised this morning when I read the Times-Colonist. They criticized me severely for having the temerity to suggest that when you take timber land out of production there's a real cost to pay. They chastised me for saying that. But I don't care; I'm going to continue to say it.
We are moving to achieve what I think all citizens in this province want -- the setting aside of those magnificent and significant areas. And by the way, the Liberal opposition has yet to take a position on that issue, and it's a great disappointment to many British Columbians that we don't know what their position is. We don't know if they're in favour or opposed. Do they want to log it all or save it all? We just do not know. Their mouths have been closed. Maybe the hon. Forests critic would like to put them on the record.
An Hon. Member: What a good idea.
Hon. D. Miller: What a great idea! I know where the Social Credit Party stands, because I was in Vernon on Friday. I hope I get an opportunity to talk about some of the progressive, innovative things that are being done under the Ministry of Forests in that district because they really are worth talking about. I happened to see a local newspaper while I was there, and the local Social Credit member said that he thought the Clayoquot Sound decision was indeed a good, sound decision. He said he had no quarrel with it.
I also noticed in that same newspaper article the member for Kelowna.... Was it the member for Kelowna who used to be Environment critic for the Liberal opposition? I think it's Kelowna. I couldn't quite figure out what her position was, except that I know she said she disagreed with the Liberal caucus. I couldn't quite figure out why, but she's opposed. If we're really trying to get at the heart of issues and people's positions, this might be an appropriate forum for the Liberal Forests critic to advise the members what the Liberal caucus position is on Clayoquot Sound. Are they in favour of the decision? Would they simply have avoided making a decision? I'm curious.
I'll leave it at that. Perhaps I've gone on too long.
[ Page 5361 ]
W. Hurd: I'm sure that that long and convoluted answer will be of utmost assurance to the 200 communities in British Columbia that enjoy a 50 percent dependency on the forest industry. When they receive copies of Hansard and have a good understanding of the minister's assertion that there's a cost involved in every decision, they'll know that they'll be paying the price sometime in the next year.
Perhaps we can keep pursuing this issue of inventory and the effects on employment and revenues to the Crown, because I think it would get us naturally into a discussion of the whole forest management issue. While the inventory reductions are based on the assumptions of existing harvesting levels, one of the things the opposition has looked for in vain in this set of spending estimates is some sort of commitment by the government to the silvicultural side of the equation. When your capital base in the forest land base is being reduced, what commitment is there to grow more trees?
In fact, one of the laments of the Forest Resources Commission report is that the capital base is eroding in this province and there seems to be no major policy shift on the part of the Ministry of Forests to induce the growing of more wood in this province, which would radically change the method of forest management to encourage the planting and tending of more trees. When people express their concern about cut reductions and the impact on employment, I think part of the frustration is a result of the fact that they don't see a leadership role from the ministry to deal with the other side of the equation, which is how to get more fibre, more trees, off a diminishing land base.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Perhaps this might be an opportunity for the minister to talk briefly about Build B.C., for example, which is still before the House, but which we understand contains a major commitment towards silviculture outside the boundaries of his ministry. How are we going to grow more wood in this province, given the fact that the last two sets of Forests estimates really have been caretaker budgets? They haven't really addressed the forest resource and the tired old clich�s and methods that have clearly landed us in the pickle we in this province are in today. I am sure the minister would welcome an opportunity to get into a discussion about how to grow more wood, how to get more fibre off the existing land base and what major policy initiatives or shifts he is prepared to make. Recognizing that the capital base is eroding and that the existing inventories indicate a need for cut reductions in every timber supply area, what specifically is his ministry going to do in this set of estimates, in the next fiscal year, to get more trees in the ground with more spacing and to regenerate this important industry? Two hundred communities, with 50 percent of their economic base, depend on this resource. Quite frankly, "We have a handle on the situation," will not be reassuring unless this minister makes a commitment to deal with the shrinking land base and to somehow produce more trees with the same amount of money, as he promised he would do -- or as he indicated he somehow was able to do under the inventory section of his spending estimates.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't accept the sort of doom-and-gloom attitude that the Liberal Party seems to have about forestry in this province. In fact, I retain my optimism. I think we have all kinds of opportunities. I just want to say that in terms of the capital base.... I'm sure I saw an article in the Globe and Mail yesterday that talked about a British Columbia forest company raising a significant amount of capital to invest in a new plant in British Columbia. Unbelievable -- a new plant. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars that a private company is going to invest in this province to create more jobs and more opportunity in the forest sector. And that's just one. The member for Peace River knows what I'm talking about.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
There is lots of opportunity; there are lots of people looking at further capital investment in this province on the manufacturing side. With respect to the manufacturing side, I should say that one of the areas that we will continue to push.... And I'll give some credit to the previous government in terms of the establishment of the section 16(1) value-added sales. I thought that was pretty innovative. That has resulted in a value-added sector that now employs about 12,000 people. In fact, it's interesting statistically to look at the numbers. The value-added sector, which utilizes around 10 percent of the resource, generates, if I'm not mistaken, about 30 percent of the value of finished products and perhaps more than 30 percent of the total employment in the solid-wood sector of the forest industry. Just think about that for a moment. Ten percent of the wood generates that kind of return in terms of the value of our exports and the number of people employed in the forest sector. In fact, if you look at the small business forest enterprise account and the revenue we'll be giving to the Crown from that account this year, it seems to illustrate the point. That sector tends to be more labour and capital intensive, and it tends to -- in fact, it must -- capture a higher return; in other words, it adds value to the resource. I think we can encourage and continue stimulating the growth of employment in that sector of the forest products industry.
[11:30]
Additionally, I think we need to look at what our position should be with respect to the pulp side. I don't think private industry has addressed that well enough. That, and the whole issue of attracting capital investment in the land base, is what we'll be trying to sort out through the forest sector group that we announced in January. In fact, we had our first meeting not long ago. It's really an economic group comprised of all the various players in the forest industry, from the major coastal companies to the integrated companies, coastal interior, down to the very smallest value-added companies. We're going to try something that has never really been tried here in the province, which is to bring together capital as represented by those various sectors
[ Page 5362 ]
of the forest industry, labour, academia and government and try to construct the framework to correct what the member, I think quite rightly, points out has been a deficiency. Despite the knowledge that you can produce more on a given land base, I wouldn't necessarily tend to lean too heavily to more volume as being all that can be achieved, because you clearly have to look at what types of trees you want to grow and what quality you're looking at in the wood that you grow. That has to be integrated with the industrial strategy in terms of what kind of industry we're looking at. So it gets to be pretty sophisticated. It's not just a question of volume of growth; it's a lot of other things that you can achieve, for example, through pruning and the clears you can get by using that and a variety of techniques.
The problem is -- and the budget doesn't specifically address it, but I think the forest sector strategy group will -- how you attract that capital. I think I went through some of this stuff last year. Up till now the tree farm licence system, which the Liberal Forest critic seems to hold as the be-all and end-all of forest policy, was designed to induce that kind of management on private lands, quite frankly. If you go back and look at it, it was a time for companies to bring in their large private landholdings in combination with Crown land, and to have good forest management on those lands. The cry has always been that if we have the security provided by those long-term licences, we'll be prepared to invest in the land base. We'll be prepared for those kinds of things.
Well, it hasn't happened. For years the Crown ran a program where, essentially, it paid for reforestation and roadbuilding through section 88. It wasn't a cost imposed on the companies; it was a deduction. We finally changed that, thanks to the Americans in '87. They said: "You're now responsible for reforestation; it's your cost, but it's only basic." Although when the act was changed in '87 it did make provision -- you'll still read it today -- for incremental or intensive, it's never really been acted on because, broadly stated, there's no ability to ensure that the investors will have the opportunity to recoup their investment. Over the rotation age, which is really what you're talking about -- a fairly long timespan -- what mechanism can you put in place that will encourage that investment and give the assurance that there will be an ability to recoup the investment? You can't attract private capital unless the private capital feels that they're going to be able to get a return on their capital.
That's the challenge. I don't think anybody has the answer right now, and since being minister for the last year and a half, I've talked about that to lots of people -- private industry, large and small. So far, in my view, that has eluded this province, unfortunately, because if we had had a system 30 or 40 years ago, we would be increasing our harvest rates today. But it didn't happen. It needs to happen, and that's going to be one of the big challenges for the forest sector advisory group to come to grips with and to make some recommendations on, so that the government can move on. I think it's possible, and I'll be looking forward to working with the industrial sector. I think you have to work with all of the sectors -- you've got to work with industry; you've got to work with labour; you've got to get the assistance that people from the universities can offer -- in trying to put together something that will last, that will achieve its objective and that will stand the test of time. That's what we're embarked on, hon. member.
W. Hurd: I appreciate those remarks, because I think they identify a critical issue in the province as far as plotting the future direction of the forest resource goes. It's interesting to note that the Science Council of B.C. estimates that it would cost roughly three times the current level of expenditure on forest management to achieve a 50 percent increase in the amount of wood that could be grown. They've identified that over the next 30 to 40 years.
The minister is correct: we did discuss this a year ago. I think it's interesting to highlight what the minister said in Hansard at that time:
"In my view, what has eluded British Columbia is a policy that would see a greater level of investment. We've made a significant investment of the taxpayer's dollar. The first forest renewal program was for $300 million, equally shared between the province and the federal government, and we're now working on a much smaller level. So the taxpayers have made some significant investments in the land base. But we have yet to develop a system..."
Whereby on a much smaller level the taxpayers will make even more significant investments in the land base.
In reviewing what was stated in Hansard last year, I think that the minister correctly identified then, and continues to identify today, that the big challenge is how to induce investment in the forest land base of the province. It is even more critical, given that the land base is shrinking because of a policy decision taken by the government -- it may in time turn out to be a correct policy decision; I'm sure it will be -- to reduce the annual allowable cuts, allocate areas to a protected-areas strategy and reduce the land base.
If indeed those are acceptable policy decisions by the government, then surely the other part of the equation is an equally revolutionary approach to the supply side of the equation. It is somewhat disappointing to the opposition, given the declining land base, that the commitment to and recognition of major policy changes on growing more trees that have to occur just do not seem to be evident in the budget.
I respect the fact that the forest strategy group may be able to come forward with recommendations that will somehow provide an incentive scheme for private industry to invest more land in the land base. But what concerns the opposition is that our competition in the rest of the world is making those kinds of investments in the land base and seem to be able to extract enough value from the resource to do that. I would welcome any discussion from the minister -- perhaps later in estimates -- about what exactly the forest strategy group will be doing. Will it be looking at silvicultural models in other countries -- Scandinavian countries and the southern parts of the United States -- where those types of incentives to invest in the land base exist
[ Page 5363 ]
and incremental increases in silviculture are producing an annual harvest that is actually increasing?
Given the level of dependency on the resource in this province -- 200 communities with a 50 percent dependency -- that type of major policy shift would be welcomed by the people of the province.
Mr. Chairman, I note that time marches on. Would it be appropriate to continue until noon?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The sessional orders, as amended on April 21, require that the committee rise a half-hour before adjournment of the House. I will leave it in the hands of the committee at this time to decide whether they want to continue on this venue, as long as we're able to report progress prior to adjournment of the House.
Hon. D. Miller: Just for clarification, hon. Chair, I assume that was to allow time for committee members to get back into the House to report progress, etc. I don't know what has happened in practice. I don't know how long it may take for us to conclude here and for you to go back into the House to report. We could probably do it in about five minutes if we wanted to.
But I am happy to pick it up, Mr. Chairman. I think the discussion is starting to get interesting.
The Chair: Order, hon. minister. The Chair is somewhat bound by the sessional orders as amended. While we're new at this, we are bound by the standing orders and the orders of the whole House. I'll leave it at this time in the hands of the committee, bearing in mind that it does become difficult -- upon conclusion of the estimates of a ministry -- to do the appropriate reporting, as under point 5 in the amended sessional orders. As we are early in the estimates, we may have some flextime, but I would caution all hon. members that the committee must report pursuant to the sessional orders. But at this time I leave it in the hands of the committee, if you so choose to continue for a few more minutes.
D. Lovick: It's not a problem.
Hon. D. Miller: Hopefully we can get back into the discussion; the member has raised a number of interesting points. I think it is possible, over time, to increase the harvest rate. I think the problem in North America is that not a single one of us has been prepared to pay for the real cost of wood. We have had it delivered too cheaply. Compare that to the Japanese, who pay extremely high prices for wood. Compare it to the Europeans, who pay extremely high prices for some of the finished products that we manufacture in this province. In North America, which has been the principle market for British Columbia, we have never been prepared to pay the real cost for wood. And that's part of the problem in getting that investment back in.
I know some have criticized the Premier, but the policy that this government has adopted is to continue looking at the markets which will give us the best return for forest products. The Asia-Pacific markets clearly fall into that category and therefore it's very fitting that the Premier continue to cultivate those markets and opportunities for further capital investment into the province.
Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude on that, and hopefully we'll get back into that very interesting subject.
I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]