2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 7



CONTENTS



Routine Proceedings

Page
Introductions by Members  3243
Introduction and First Reading of Bills  3244
Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)
    Hon. M. de Jong
Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)
    Hon. M. de Jong
Statements (Standing Order 25B) 3244
International Youth Week
    J. Bray
Lions Gate Bridge
    L. Mayencourt
Adult literacy
    V. Anderson
Introductions by Members  3245
Oral Questions 3246
Lobbying by Liberal MLA
    J. MacPhail
    Hon. G. Campbell
Irene Chanin's position with BCBC
    J. Kwan
    Hon. G. Campbell
Negotiations with physicians and dispute resolution process
    K. Johnston
    Hon. C. Hansen
Child care funding
    V. Anderson
    Hon. L. Stephens
Lobbyists' meetings with cabinet members
    J. MacPhail
    Hon. G. Campbell
Electronic delivery of government services
    B. Suffredine
    Hon. G. Abbott
Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling) 3248
Petitions  3249
P. Nettleton
Committee of the Whole House  3249
School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued)
    J. MacPhail
    Hon. C. Clark
    R. Hawes
    J. Kwan
Petitions  3255
J. Kwan
Committee of the Whole House  3255
School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) (continued)
    Hon. R. Neufeld
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)
    J. MacPhail
    Hon. R. Neufeld
Reporting of Bills  3273
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)
Third Reading of Bills  3273
Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)

 

[ Page 3243 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002

           The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

           J. Bray: This afternoon it's my pleasure to introduce Colin Plant and Carol Whitehouse from Leadership Victoria, as well as Janet Barkley, an Esquimalt recreation programmer, and Sadit Karem, a Saanich recreation programmer, to the House. These four individuals are all involved in the first annual Victoria Youth Week taking place May 6 to 10. Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome to the House today.

           Hon. S. Santori: Over the years the city of Trail has built a great reputation for its ability to host major and significant events in the community. Today it's my pleasure to introduce someone who has played a key role in making these events a success in our community.

           He's a gentleman who has chaired or co-chaired many events like the B.C. Winter Games in our community, the B.C. Summer Games, the B.C. Seniors Games, and was chairman of the 1995 Babe Ruth World Series provincial as well as Canadian Little League championships.

           This gentleman is currently the chief executive officer of Kootenay Savings Credit Union in Trail, and he's joined today by his lovely wife Kathy, a nurse at the Trail Regional Hospital. Please give these people, Doug Stanley and Kathy Stanley from Trail, a warm welcome.

[1405]

           I. Chong: In the gallery today are two very special people: Dr. Sam Macey and his daughter Elizabeth. Dr. Macey can be seen in Oak Bay village at various times. He's spotted by his very ebullient smile as he walks through the village and enjoys the opportunities there to greet and meet with people. Dr. Macey was a founding member of the Open Learning Institute and is a former dean of graduate studies at the University of Victoria. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

           R. Lee: It's a pleasure for me to introduce four special guests to the House today. They are from the People's Republic of China on a six-month work experience in Victoria. Ms. Zheng Yong is a principal staff member from the comprehensive division budget department in the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China. Ms. Li Xiaoqian is a principal staff member from the budget division in the financial department of the Heilongjiang province.

           Mr. Cheng Danfeng is a staff member in the finance division of the treasury department in the Ministry of Finance, the People's Republic of China, and Mr. Zhang Rui is the vice-director of the Chinese government bond issuance and payment division, treasury payment bureau, Ministry of Finance.

           Zheng Yong and Li Xiaoqian are attached to the office of the comptroller general here, and Cheng Danfeng and Zhang Rui will be attached to the provincial treasury. I'm sure they will enjoy working in the Legislature and will take back many valuable experiences to China. Would the House please make them very welcome.

           J. Kwan: Visiting the House today is the president of the Action Committee of People with Disabilities, Joanne Neubauer. The ACPD believes that all people deserve to live a decent life with dignity, and they believe we all have the duty to ensure that business does not go on as usual while people are being left to die on the streets. They are calling on the government to abandon Bill 26 and Bill 27 to ensure that British Columbians are afforded the right to dignity in life. Will the House please make Joanne welcome.

           R. Visser: Today is a great day. One of this House's great defenders of his constituency, of all things Welsh and fish, has reached Freedom 55. Would the House please wish the member for Nanaimo a happy birthday today.

           Hon. J. Murray: I'm happy to introduce Connie Fenyo, who is in the gallery today. Connie is an executive in the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce and a businesswoman and business leader who has confidence in the emerging economic opportunities in New West and in B.C. Would the House please make Connie welcome.

           M. Hunter: Freedom 55. I would like to thank the member for North Island for that kind remark.

           I stand to introduce three people today who are some of my most important supporters: my wife, Joy, who has been here many times before, and her parents, Bryn and Iris Stephens, both of whom are avid watchers of the parliamentary TV channel. Will the House please make them very welcome.

           S. Orr: We have two very special people visiting us today. Nouri Najjar is a grade 9 student at Reynolds School, and he is also one of the Pages that take such good care of us down here on the Legislature floor. With him is his father, Ibrahim Najjar, who is visiting us from the United Arab Emirates. I must say to Mr. Najjar: you have a son to be very proud of. Would this House please make them welcome.

[1410]

           Hon. M. Coell: I would like the House to make welcome 25 grades 4 and 5 students from Keating Elementary School and their teacher, Ms. Cautrais. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 3244 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

PROTECTED AREAS
FORESTS COMPENSATION ACT

           Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 39 be read a first time now.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 39 today. This bill confirms the process by which the Crown would compensate forest companies for harvesting rights or improvements that were lost due to government-sanctioned land use decisions, largely during the 1990s.

           Bill 39 will apply the existing Forest Act compensation provisions to those land use decisions and ensure that companies are fairly compensated and that there is certainty and consistency for companies and the public in respect of compensation decisions.

           I am also bound to say that had the previous administration taken the appropriate steps in a timely way to confirm the methodology by which compensation would be calculated, Bill 39 would not have been necessary.

           This bill also reflects a recent court ruling which confirmed that the Forest Act compensation provisions were the appropriate vehicle to address compensation issues arising out of these land use decisions, even though the Forest Act provisions were not invoked at the time.

           I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

           Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST (FIRST NATIONS DEVELOPMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

           Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002.

           Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 41 be read a first time now.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 41 amends the Forest Act to provide first nations with greater opportunities to participate in the forest sector. The bill enables the Minister of Forests to invite a first nation to apply directly for forest tenures in furtherance of treaty-related or economic measures agreements between the government and that first nation.

           Bill 41 also allows the minister or designate to suspend or cancel that forest tenure if the first nation does not comply with the treaty-related or economic measures agreement that led to the award of tenure in the first place.

           Mr. Speaker, Bill 41 builds on announcements made earlier this month by the Premier and the Attorney General and supports this government's new-era commitment to move ahead with interim measures to ensure greater certainty during treaty negotiations and also to promote and facilitate the legitimate interests that first nations have in participating more directly in forestry-related economic development.

           I move that Bill 41 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

INTERNATIONAL YOUTH WEEK

           J. Bray: Today I have the pleasure to present to this House information regarding activities celebrating International Youth Week.

           Youth Week started in 1995 with a handful of events in different cities in Canada. It has grown to international status and now includes events in countries such as the United States, Australia, the U.K., Peru, Ghana and other countries. Spearheaded here by Leadership Victoria, Youth Week includes a variety of events which showcase the interests, talents and diversity of our youth. A listing of events has been posted on a website at www.youth.city.victoria.bc.ca.

[1415]

           Even though we've all been youth ourselves, perhaps no age group is so misunderstood. Each generation of parents struggles to provide their teens with opportunities that challenge them while keeping them safe, and this is not always an easy thing to do. Youth Week reminds us all of the energy, vitality and promise that our youth bring to us. Our youth experiment, create and develop their own language and subculture and present a refreshing perspective on the world. Our challenge is to embrace this enthusiasm and continue to provide them with an environment of support and challenge.

           Youth are an important asset to our community. Not only do they often have the most disposable income in a family, adding greatly to our local economies, but a study published by the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria reports that 32 percent of our youth volunteer their time in our communities.

[ Page 3245 ]

           This is an exciting time to be a youth in Victoria and British Columbia. As confidence in our economy continues to build, there are more opportunities for youth created every day by small business owners and community leaders. We must continue to harness the energy, hopes and dreams of our youth. We must ensure we engage all of our youth, as their contributions will only strengthen our communities and our lives. Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders.

           Again, I would like to thank Leadership Victoria, greater Victoria recreation departments and area youth for organizing such an exciting week of events. I would encourage all Victorians and British Columbians to join me in acknowledging the value of youth and the value that they bring to our community by participating in various events of International Youth Week here in Victoria.

LIONS GATE BRIDGE

           L. Mayencourt: I've admired the Lions Gate Bridge for decades, and thanks to a recent refit, this beautiful bridge will be here for many more decades. Many people helped to make this restoration possible, and they all deserve a great thank-you, but most of all, my hat goes off to the men and women that rebuilt her.

           This bridge is an economic and social link, but did any city ever have a finer gateway into the great outdoors? Well, I think not. The Lions Gate Bridge is much, much more. It's an international icon without equal. Walkers challenge it, cyclists revel in it, and residents enjoy its graceful symmetry against a mountainous backdrop.

           Have you ever wondered how many photographs of the Lions Gate Bridge might be floating around — photos of tourists with our bridge looming in the background? It must run in the millions and perhaps beyond, and its value to tourism is not to be underestimated.

           Throughout history, bridges have always stood for progress, for bringing people and communities together. Bridges take us to places previously inaccessible, and quite literally, bridges move mankind forward river by river and bay by bay. There's no need for us to wonder where we'd be without them. We'd be stranded on the other side.

           Lions Gate Bridge will be enjoyed and marvelled over for many generations. Those that are keenly interested in the engineering aspects will have access to reams of information about this refit in as much detail as they can handle. They will think about the men and women that rebuilt her. Even those without an engineering background, those who take an hour or two some quiet evening to research the history of this bridge a week from today or a hundred years from now, will all come face to face with the skill and determination of those workers. In future years marvellous photographs and news stories of this project will also serve as a bridge helping to narrow the gap between today and tomorrow.

           I share a dream with many other Lions Gate lovers to honour these men and women by having our bridge recognized as a national historic site.

ADULT LITERACY

           V. Anderson: Today I would like to express my adoration and appreciation for two groups of people. First, I would like to express my admiration for those adults in our communities who tackle and overcome the literacy gap in their lives. These are the people who, for whatever reason, did become functional adults despite not having mastered the knack of being able to read or write. They are, for the most part, very adaptive people who function very well in their communities, thank you, in spite of the difficulty and handicaps they have in not being able to either read or write on their own and often without other people being aware of their difficulty.

[1420]

           Thus it is a big challenge to tackle, as an adult, the slow process, the patience and the frustration which one must go through in order to learn to read and write. But what an achievement as stage by stage they learn and make their lives even richer by patience, persistence and perseverance.

           Also, I would like to express my appreciation to those women and men of all ages who take the time and effort, often as volunteers, to encourage and coach these new learners in reading, writing and often arithmetic. Many of these coaches take their time to share with others their thrill in reading and writing. Among these are those who are part of Literacy B.C., Literacy Canada and other similar groups around the world.

           These are persons who believe that it is never too late for persons to learn to read and write and to get the thrill and satisfaction of doing those things for themselves at home, in the family, in pleasure and at work. These, too, are patient and persistent persons who dedicate themselves. In Literacy B.C. we have a channel for those who would learn to read and write no matter what their age.

           P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

           Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

           P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I note that two gentlemen from Prince George North have just joined us in the gallery today. These two gentlemen are very successful in their own right and certainly have continued to invest in the province of British Columbia. I would ask that the House please make both Terry Kuzma and Bill Kordyban Jr. very welcome.

           K. Manhas: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

           Leave granted.

[ Page 3246 ]

           K. Manhas: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a group of students from B.C. Christian Academy visiting Victoria from Port Coquitlam.

Oral Questions

LOBBYING BY LIBERAL MLA

           J. MacPhail: There are a couple of questions that have gone unanswered in the Premier's absence, so I welcome him back. Last week a B.C. Liberal backbench MLA was caught mixing private and public business. As the Premier saw it last week, the member was only doing his job. Of course, this is the same Premier that promised time and again that Liberal friends would not get special treatment.

           Everybody except the Premier agrees that the member for East Kootenay crossed the line, including the member in question. Will the Premier finally stand up and add his voice to condemning the behaviour that was demonstrated, and will he please tell his restless and bored back bench that pressuring public servants to hire friends is unacceptable?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell the member opposite that I am proud of the work that our back bench has done on behalf of all of their constituents across the province. I am proud of this Legislature. Unlike previous Legislatures that I was involved in, which the member opposite was at least partially responsible for, we've had a Health Committee of this Legislature go across the province and work with people in British Columbia to make a health care system that works for patients.

           I am proud we have a Legislature that says we want to make sure that we include British Columbians in improving our education system. I am proud we have a legislative committee that's working with British Columbians across this province to improve the quality of life of aboriginal British Columbians. I am proud that we have a back bench that's willing to stand up for their constituents and always look for the best value for the tax dollar in British Columbia.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

           J. MacPhail: Well, that's a bit of a surprise statement by the Premier. Even the member for East Kootenay understood he had stepped over the line and apologized for lobbying for a friend at the expense of other local business people. I can't understand why the Premier insists on continuing to defend behaviour that everybody else understands is wrong.

[1425]

           The Premier said, actually, and has continued to say that he's encouraging that kind of behaviour. In this case, then, can the Premier table today the guidelines and instructions that he's provided to his MLAs to ensure that they're not doing business on behalf of friends or clients?

           Hon. G. Campbell: It is clear that the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia wanted to change the kinds of attitudes that were prevalent in the last government. We have done that. We are open. We have open communication. We have open tendering in this province. We have detailed public regulations that make sure that whenever the public invest dollars, they are getting the best value possible for their tax dollars.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we have a Premier that thinks the kind of behaviour of lobbying on behalf of a friend at the expense of the rest of the local business community is just fine. That's exactly what the Premier has said. And not only do they do the lobbying, but…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           J. MacPhail: …backbench MLAs are responsible for approving funds — funds from ministry expenses that go to exactly the kind of businesses on behalf of which this member was lobbying.

           The Premier has a document this thick for guidelines for cabinet members. It's clear that MLAs are running rampant, lobbying on behalf of their friends and who the heck knows else-wise.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           J. MacPhail: What guidelines are in place for the kind of behaviour that this Premier thinks is just fine?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite will know, this government undid a lot of the damage that they did with their closed tendering processes. We've opened up tendering. We have included the people of British Columbia in knowing what our goals and objectives are. We would say to every British Columbian, regardless of their political background: "You are welcome to bid…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Campbell: …on contracts that this government will let." The public service, the professional, non-partisan public service, will let them on the basis of the best value possible to British Columbians.

IRENE CHANIN'S POSITION WITH BCBC

           J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, today the government is targeting programs for children in Vancouver. The

[ Page 3247 ]

school immunization program team, the Small Talk program for preschoolers with speech and language disorders and vision screening programs for children in day care and preschool — all of these programs have been cut back or eliminated.

           At the same time, the Premier has created a soft landing at the B.C. Buildings Corporation for Irene Chanin, the former deputy minister of his public affairs bureau. Can the Premier please inform this House just what his priorities are? Are they protecting necessary health programs for children? Or are they secretly creating six-figure salary jobs for failed deputies at a quiet Crown corporation?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can report to this member the priorities of this government. This government is committed to creating a health care system that focuses on patients, and that's why we've increased the budget by $1.1 billion. This government is committed to creating a top-notch education system that focuses on students, which is why we've increased the Education budget in the province of British Columbia. And this government is dedicated to ensuring that we have the kind of public services that create value for citizens across this province.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

           J. Kwan: Hospitals are closing. Long-term bed facilities are closing. Educational programs are being cut. BCBC already has a fully staffed communications department, and there are no postings — no postings — for senior positions there. It's on the website — no postings.

           But the Premier had to find Irene Chanin a new job, maybe because she refused to implement the political agenda the Premier is demanding for his communications shop. At any rate, the Premier's office ordered BCBC to make room for her big salary. To the Premier: how much severance would Ms. Chanin be entitled to if the Premier hadn't found a cosy position for her, and can he advise us what process was there to find Ms. Chanin her new taxpayer-funded job?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. Chanin was hired by the government under a three-year contract. She has been seconded to BCBC for the next two years as part of a transition. There will be major changes in government communication, and those will be announced in June, as I said during my estimates.

[1430]

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS
AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

           K. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. The B.C. Medical Association is claiming that it is the lack of an adequate dispute resolution mechanism that is forcing doctors to begin the withdrawal of health care services. To the Minister of Health Services: why won't the government agree to the BCMA's proposal for a dispute resolution system?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think, first of all, the thing that motivates us in all of our deliberations and actions around this area is how to put patients first in British Columbia and meet their needs wherever they are in British Columbia. That was certainly the motivation of the Premier six weeks ago today when he signed a memorandum of understanding with the B.C. Medical Association that actually provided for a framework to resolve the allocation of $392 million of new money for physician compensation and to resolve it in a way that would provide for those solutions without compromising patient care in the province.

           One of the issues that was agreed to that would be resolved as a result of that memorandum of understanding was a dispute settlement mechanism. We put a proposal on the table early on in those discussions, and the BCMA did not respond to it. They did not signal that they wanted substantive discussion at the bargaining table throughout these various weeks of discussion. Then for them to withdraw from negotiations and say that the lack of success on that particular issue was the reason, I find very hard to fathom.

           When I see doctors in this province threatening to put patient care in jeopardy because of their inability to move forward in a meaningful way on negotiations around dispute settlement mechanisms, I have a real problem with that.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplementary question.

           K. Johnston: Recently the provincial and federal governments agreed on a dispute resolution mechanism for solving issues between the two levels of government. Can the Minister of Health Services tell us if the government would accept a similar dispute resolution mechanism between the province and the BCMA?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly saw the telecast of the president of the BCMA commenting favourably about the dispute settlement mechanism that is in place between the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to interpretation of the Canada Health Act. We would certainly be willing to explore that as a model. That could very well be the basis if that is something they're interested in as a dispute settlement mechanism.

           The point is that we can't resolve these issues if there are not negotiations. The BCMA, I believe, has an obligation to patients in British Columbia to get back to the negotiating table today to resolve these outstanding issues.

CHILD CARE FUNDING

           V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. As the end of the school year approaches, many parents are planning for the

[ Page 3248 ]

children's after-school care next fall. This week the minister announced the $10.1 million of transition funding for out-of-school care programs. To the Minister of State for Women's Equality: what does this announcement mean for the parents of children who are planning to be enrolled in these programs next fall?

           Hon. L. Stephens: This is very good news indeed, because our government is committed to ensuring that school-age child care services are available to parents who need them. I'm very pleased that this transitional grant of $10.1 million will be available to 495 currently enrolled child care providers and approximately 17,000 children, beginning in July for the summer care and then in September for the next school year. This funding will provide the stability and predictability of quality child care for parents and their children across the province.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara has a supplementary question.

           V. Anderson: The Minister of State for Women's Equality has committed to increasing child care options for British Columbians and to direct funding to those who need it most. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell our constituents how this announcement is going to facilitate a long-term child care plan?

[1435]

           Hon. L. Stephens: This is a transitional grant, and it gives us the flexibility that we need to develop a long-term child care plan that will be partnership-driven, community-focused, fiscally sustainable and targeted to families who need it the most.

           This new targeted system will reduce the administrative costs for providers. It will make more efficient use of our limited provincial resources, and it will provide more choices for parents and their children. In addition, it will deliver on our new-era commitment and our promise to target families who need it the most and to encourage the expansion of child care services in British Columbia.

LOBBYISTS' MEETINGS WITH CABINET MEMBERS

           J. MacPhail: So far we've had that it's okay to lobby on behalf of friends, it's okay to…. No jobs available at BCBC, but put a deputy minister in there. Let's try another one for the Premier today.

           Last week we asked twice of the Attorney General if organizations represented by Bruce Clark had been meeting with cabinet members. Two times the Attorney General ducked the question.

           This time to the Premier: has Bruce Clark, a well-known and well-connected Liberal insider, been arranging meetings for clients with ministers in this government?

           Just a simple question. Couldn't get it last week. Yes or no?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I have no idea.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston.

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

           B. Suffredine: My question is for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. One of the government's new-era commitments was to make B.C. a world leader in e-government. In my riding there are many rural communities and businesses that could benefit from being able to access services from government on line. Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell us what progress he's made in fulfilling this commitment?

           Hon. G. Abbott: This government did, in the last campaign, make some very ambitious commitments around leading in e-government and bridging the digital divide. I am delighted to advise the member and the House today that we've taken a big step in that direction with the installation of community access terminals in all 58 of the government agent's offices around British Columbia.

           What this will allow us to do in both a cost-effective and, I think, a very effective way for all British Columbians — whether they're from a rural community or an urban community — is to, in a very immediate way, access all of the government services and programs that are available to them. I think this is an important step on the way to effective leadership in e-government across British Columbia and around the world.

           [End of question period.]

Point of Order
(Speaker's Ruling)

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on May 2 the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order relating to privileges of members and reports of committees funded out of the Legislative Assembly budget. She later specifically stated that she was raising a point of order, not a point of privilege.

           The gist of the member's question was whether the stipend paid pursuant to section 8 of the Legislative Allowances and Pension Act to the chairman of the government caucus offshore oil and gas committee made the committee subject to parliamentary privileges insofar as that funding comes out of the vote 1 general budget rather than the Liberal caucus global budget.

           Select standing and special committees are a subsidiary component of the Legislative Assembly. They are formed of members from all parties chosen by the Special Committee of Selection, instructed by order of

[ Page 3249 ]

the House, and report to the House in accordance with those instructions. Both parliamentary law and the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act apply to legislative committees.

           On the other hand, caucus committees are formed by a party caucus from its members and are subject only to its control. They have no official status in the House, do not report to the House and play a role only within the party caucus.

           The payment of a stipend to the chairman of a caucus committee, pursuant to section 8 of the Legislative Allowances and Pension Act, does not transform that committee into a House committee comparable to a select standing or special committee.

           Therefore, the short answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition is in the negative.

[1440]

Petitions

           P. Nettleton: I wish to present a petition, if I may, from 148 students and parents from the Gladstone School in Prince George. They're opposed to the proposed closure of their school there.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of the Whole. For the information of all members, we are debating at committee stage Bill 34.

Committee of the Whole House

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
(continued)

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

           On section 32 (continued).

           J. MacPhail: We're on section 32, which is the incorporation of parts of the Company Act into the School Act.

[1445]

           My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was pursuing issues around the engagement of parts of the executive of a school board — with one hat — on pursuing matters under this section, the Company Act, which may fail, and how one can guarantee the separation of the risk and potential failure of a matter pursued under the Company Act so that it doesn't impede or harm program delivery or assets of the school board.

           My colleague and I were looking for examples of situations that perhaps required this kind of legislation in order for us to assess exactly what the intent of this legislation is. Here's why. There is a range of fundraising and commercial activities in which school boards engage now — a full range — both within the province and outside of the province. None have been, as far as I know, threatened with any legal action or, in any way, where there's been a mixture of perhaps liability of a failed commercial action imposing on school programs. We're trying to understand the necessity of this. That's all.

           Hon. C. Clark: As I said before, school districts have asked us for this legislation. In fact, they asked previous governments and previous, previous, previous governments for legislation like this that would achieve this purpose. Clearly, they are concerned about whether or not the activities they're engaging in would open themselves up to any kind of liability. They asked for this change in legislation. We agreed with them that we wanted to ensure that taxpayers' assets are protected and that schools and those assets we've invested so much in are protected.

           At the same time, we certainly want to encourage school districts to go out and engage in entrepreneurial activity where it's appropriate. Particularly, we've talked a lot about school districts going and exporting our intellectual capital in the Far East. There are certainly some opportunities there to bring some money home for B.C. kids, and this legislation, I think, not only offers them the ability to protect themselves but also sends them a very clear message that we want to encourage them to undertake some of these activities.

           J. MacPhail: How does one distinguish when the secretary-treasurer of a school board is wearing a hat as a director under the Company Act or as secretary-treasurer of the school board?

           Hon. C. Clark: Certainly, it depends on where the member is sitting.

           J. MacPhail: What's the legal protection against pursuit of duties with wearing one hat or the other?

           Hon. C. Clark: Perhaps the member would clarify her question.

           J. MacPhail: As I recall the debate from this morning, the minister pointed out that the secretary-treasurer would be sitting as a director under the Company Act. Is that correct?

           Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, if the member takes a moment to have a look at the amendments we've proposed, in the act it very clearly says that it can be the secretary-treasurer or it can be a trustee of the board.

[1450]

           J. MacPhail: Yes. What I was saying was that a secretary-treasurer is an employee of the school board with specific fiduciary responsibilities for the delivery of programs. At the same time, he or she can, by the legislation, be a director pursuant to the Company Act if the school board incorporates itself. The minister has said that this section is needed to prevent the school board from assuming liability for any actions — I as-

[ Page 3250 ]

sume fundraising actions — that will now be taken over by an incorporation, pursuant to the Company Act, where the secretary-treasurer or a trustee can have a foot in both places.

           Where's the firewall to prevent…? Is there some sort of limited liability that's being placed upon the individual who sits both as a trustee or secretary-treasurer and as a director of the company? The whole pursuit of this, I assume, is to not allow public assets to be used for risk in the pursuit of a commercial venture.

           Hon. C. Clark: The reason I made my last point is because the member, in her question, indicated that she thought the legislation required a secretary-treasurer to be a member of the board. I wanted to just draw her attention to the fact that the legislation doesn't actually say that. It says that the secretary-treasurer may be a member of the board. I suspect the member is getting to a point here, and it will help me understand her question if she just gets to the point and we can have a discussion about the subject she's obviously trying to pursue here.

           J. MacPhail: I did. What part of the question didn't the minister understand? We're trying to figure out the necessity of incorporating the Company Act into a school act that deals with public education. The minister has said it's to pursue commercial and entrepreneurial activity that is separate and apart from putting at risk or imposing any liability — those were her words — on the school board. We're talking about limiting liability, and yet we have a situation by the legislation that permits a secretary-treasurer — in fact, names a secretary-treasurer and names a school trustee — to be a director of the company that I gather will be pursuing commercial or entrepreneurial activity for which the minister doesn't want to have their risk imposed on the school board. I'm asking what hat it is that…. Let's say it's either a school trustee or the secretary-treasurer. One is an employee; the other is an elected official. How does one distinguish what hat that person is wearing in order to impose limited liability?

           Hon. C. Clark: They have different powers. When the individual is acting for the board, they're acting for the board, and when they're acting for the company, they're acting for the company. It's as simple as that.

[1455]

           R. Hawes: I've been listening to this for quite a while. Just for my own clarification, if I could ask the minister, perhaps just with an example…. The district of Mission owns a development corporation. The sole shareholder is the district of Mission. The board of directors are the mayor and the council and the administrator. The administrator is the secretary-treasurer. That company does business in anything from land development work…. It also does some mortgage lending. It may go into joint venture partnerships. It can do all kinds of things that are kind of off the balance sheet, if you will, of the municipality, although it is later incorporated into the balance sheet of the municipality. Yet it does limit risk to the general taxpayer from the ventures that the development corporation may be engaged in.

           Are we talking about a similar type of thing here?

           Hon. C. Clark: Indeed, we are. It's a very similar thing. I think, as the member has illustrated, it's a fairly common thing at the level of local government. The purpose, of course, is to do what his municipality has done, which is to protect the public assets from any liability. It's a fairly commonly understood and commonly engaged-in activity.

           I would add this, of course, as well. This is something that school districts have been asking for, for a long time. They recognize the need for it. I think they're delighted that they finally have a government in Victoria that agrees with them and recognizes that they're right.

           R. Hawes: Over the years the development corporation in Mission has been tremendously successful, has generated a great deal of profit that has come back into the municipality as its sole shareholder.

           I'm assuming, then, that the minister is hopeful and all of the school boards that asked for this are hopeful that the same thing is going to happen here. Would that be wrong?

           Hon. C. Clark: The purpose of this is to allow school boards, in a way that protects them and the public assets from liability, to go out and engage in entrepreneurial activities that will earn money for our kids in our schools. That means if they go and start a school in China and they're able to earn some money from tuition for those students, they can bring that home to their local school district and put it in classrooms here. Or they can recruit students from overseas to be a part of our classrooms here where they would pay tuition in our classrooms. It's something that is being done now but certainly something that school districts want more encouragement for and more protection for when they're doing it.

           There's nothing wrong with us exporting our intellectual capital. We have invested a huge amount in our curriculum in British Columbia. We should be maximizing that value. We should be bringing that value home for students in British Columbia's schools.

           J. Kwan: In municipalities and having been a city councillor, I have some sense of what the minister is talking about in terms of the municipality setting up a company or a corporation. In those instances, the municipalities utilize municipal staff, the staff that's available to them within the municipality.

           In this instance, is it anticipated that the school board will utilize school board staff to create these entrepreneurial ventures?

           Hon. C. Clark: If they do, it would be outside the terms of their employment with the school board.

[ Page 3251 ]

           J. Kwan: Is the minister saying they're not allowed to do that? If they do, what happens?

           Hon. C. Clark: They would certainly be allowed, but again, it would be outside of their responsibilities to the school board.

           J. Kwan: If the school boards are allowed to utilize resources that ought to be dedicated to providing educational support to the school system here, if these school trustees end up utilizing staff to do work in creating revenue for the school board, does that not take away the resources in the school system?

           Hon. C. Clark: Again, they may use those staff. Again, it would be outside the terms of their employment with the school district. We fully expect that school districts will continue to stick to their knitting. They'll focus on the core business that they have, and that's educating B.C.'s children. To the extent that they're able to maximize other opportunities and bring those opportunities home for B.C. kids, we'd like to encourage them to do so.

[1500]

           J. Kwan: If the school board then utilizes staff to do this work, would they have to engage in a separate contract with those staff? That is to say, if staff are being asked to develop business ventures to make money as opposed to putting their time and effort into the educational programs necessary for the students in B.C., and when that time is diverted away, then one would assume that the individual is not doing his or her job.

           The only way for the school board to utilize staff to engage in developing business ventures to make money for the school board would be that they would have to contract them out under a separate contract. It would not be within the terms of the employment they'd been hired to do. That's the only way they could actually engage in those kinds of business venture activities.

           Hon. C. Clark: As I said, they may engage to work for the company. That would be outside the terms of their agreement with the school board. They may decide to work for the company, but again, it would be separate.

           J. Kwan: The existing situation is such that schools are already engaging in fundraising activities. They already sell the B.C. curriculum to other countries. They already do a lot of the things the minister suggests in the government's press release in trying to create additional dollars for the school system, without the incorporation.

           With the incorporation, the minister is saying staff within the school boards must not be diverted from their jobs in developing and working on the educational issues for the students in B.C., and when staff are asked to do that work, they must do it outside of the time and the terms of employment they now have with the school boards. That means if an existing staff member is to engage in that work, he or she must engage in some sort of different contract with the school board in order to do the work.

           Who does the minister think, then, the school board will have working on developing these entrepreneurial activities if they're not to rely on their staff? Who will be doing that work, and where will they get the money to hire the staff to do that work?

           Hon. C. Clark: It could be whole range of people. They could decide on existing staff, or existing staff could decide they would like to devote part of their time to doing that. There could be new employees. We've heard from a number of former superintendents across the province who just have a huge appetite to get involved in this, so they would certainly be a source of potential support for the companies the districts would form.

           Sort of in answer to the comments the member prefaced her question with, she said, "Why are we doing this again?" and has asked that question again. The answer to that, as I'll reiterate, is because school districts have told us that yes, they are engaging in some of these activities, but they're nervous about it.

           Frankly, so is the ministry — and with good reason. We are an increasingly litigious society, and none of us at the provincial level or at the district level wants to put taxpayers' assets at risk. That's why school districts have asked us for this change, and that's why we fulfilled the request.

           J. Kwan: Where would the funding come from for the new employees?

           Hon. C. Clark: I think I know where the member is going here, so perhaps I could just cut to the chase and answer the question. The company that's formed by a school district may not use money from the grant that is granted to them by the province to support their activities. Just to make sure she knows, these employees we're talking about will be employees of that company, and the money the company would pay them with cannot be a grant from the provincial government.

[1505]

           J. Kwan: Existing staff, the minister says, who've been hired by money from the provincial government cannot be putting their time towards any of the work in relation to the incorporation of the company or the work that has arisen from the incorporation of the company?

           Hon. C. Clark: Not time that they're paid for by the school board. It would be either on their own time, or they would be remunerated for that portion of their time by the company.

           J. Kwan: The revenues that are generated from these companies — would the minister have any direc-

[ Page 3252 ]

tion with respect to how those moneys would be spent? Or is it entirely up to the board?

           Hon. C. Clark: It's up to the board.

           J. Kwan: Earlier, before we broke for lunch, I asked a question about risk — wherein if these business ventures should fail, who would be responsible or liable for the failed ventures? The minister said that it would be the company.

           What about a case where the company has representatives as directors who are trustees or the secretary-treasurer on the board, as is allowed in the act? What if the venture fails and the company has no ability to absorb the costs of the failed venture? Who will then be responsible?

           Hon. C. Clark: This is consistent with the laws of British Columbia and with the Company Act. Any liability would be limited to the company.

           J. Kwan: Could the incorporation of such companies or the work of the school boards decide to privatize schools in British Columbia? Would they be able to do that?

           Hon. C. Clark: Schools are a public asset, and the answer is no.

           Section 32 approved.

           On section 33.

           J. Kwan: Section 33 speaks to the acquisition and disposal of land. The original act allows the school boards to dispose of land with the approval of the minister. The amendment means that now the board can dispose of land without seeking the approval of the minister.

           School boards are facing unprecedented financial hardship, and the disposal of land and school buildings may be looked at as a quick way of generating much-needed funding dollars. What will the minister do to ensure that the disposal of school assets considers the long-term needs of schools and that boards will not be forced to dispose of valuable and much-needed assets simply to deal with the short-term need to balance budgets?

[1510]

           Hon. C. Clark: School districts aren't able to take money from their capital account, from the sale of their capital assets, and use it for operating. That's a longstanding rule that the government imposed on school districts, and we aren't anticipating changing that.

           J. Kwan: Well, then, the disposal of assets. What kind of assets is the minister anticipating that school boards are entitled to dispose of?

           Hon. C. Clark: It could be a whole host of things. It could be a maintenance yard; it could be the school board office, if they decide to move. It could be a whole host of different kinds of assets, but again, the school district is required to put that back in their capital account. It must be spent on capital; it cannot be spent supporting the operating costs of the school district.

           J. Kwan: On the issue of capital, the minister is not providing much-needed funding to upgrade schools for any number of things. I know that in my own community, there are times when there are issues around window leaks. When it rains, it pours not only outside but inside. When the capital funding dollars are not forthcoming from the minister to fix the school buildings, would disposal of these assets and the dollars be utilized for fixing up repairs and maintenance for schools?

           Hon. C. Clark: As has long been the case, school districts can…. You know, repairs are considered part of capital spending. Certainly, though, we do provide money to school districts for maintenance. We hear from school districts fairly frequently that they think that money is reasonably adequate.

           J. Kwan: Even the minister herself had formerly complained about how the funding is insufficient, especially for upgrading schools for earthquake preparedness purposes, as an example. The former government initiated the process in terms of putting moneys into capital upgrades in that area. Children, teachers and parents continue to lobby for additional dollars in these areas. Would a school board be able to divert or sell assets to fix their schools to upgrade for the purposes of, let's say, earthquake preparedness?

           Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the rules around this haven't changed.

           J. Kwan: It was a first when the minister earlier said that she would answer the question directly. Unfortunately, that was the first and only time so far in the debate on Bill 34. Nonetheless, I assume that the answer is yes. Actually, I get that from the staff sitting behind the minister, who is nodding his head. I seem to be able to get more information that way rather than from the minister. I assume, then, that the answer is yes, they're able to do that.

           Would the school boards be able to dispose of their assets in such a way that they would take that money and invest it in these corporations that we earlier discussed?

           Hon. C. Clark: As I said, it has to go to the capital account.

[1515]

           J. Kwan: So the disposal of the assets cannot be utilized for the purposes of business ventures of any shape or form. Why is the minister deciding now that the approval for the disposal of the assets should not come to the minister for approval?

           Hon. C. Clark: We've said all along that school districts should have autonomy to make decisions that

[ Page 3253 ]

reflect their local communities' needs and local priorities. This is a demonstration of that. We trust that school boards will make the right decisions about disposing of capital assets. They aren't little kids that require approval from mom and dad every time they turn around. School districts are locally elected. They are responsible. They are empowered by law to make decisions. We believe that they are entirely capable of making these decisions.

           J. Kwan: How much asset does the minister think the school boards have in British Columbia?

           Hon. C. Clark: Well, it's a ballpark, but there's about $8.5 billion of buildings and land in school districts' asset base.

           J. Kwan: Would the minister have this information broken down on a school-board-by-school-board basis?

           Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I could get that for her. I'm not going to go through the list of 1,750 schools here today, but I could certainly get that for her.

           J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that information: the assets that school boards own, broken down school board by school board, district by district; what those assets are and the anticipated value of those assets.

           Sections 33 and 34 approved.

           On section 35.

           J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the reason for the change here, please?

           Hon. C. Clark: We want to make sure that school districts share in the proceeds of the sale of an asset proportionate to their original investment. We think that's only fair.

           J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking for what the change is. Can the minister explain the way it was before and what the change is now, please, for the record?

           Hon. C. Clark: The current School Act, I'm advised, is unclear about the requirement to share in the proceeds of a sale from capital assets. The amendment to the legislation clarifies that.

           J. MacPhail: I'm curious to know what change there will be in practice as a result of this legislation. I'm just trying to figure out what the intent is here. Is the new amendment merely reflecting current practice, or will there be a change in practice as a result of this new legislation?

[1520]

           Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, this is a change in practice for school districts. Previously, if the province had any share in contributing to or supporting the purchase of an asset, if that asset was disposed of, all of the money — no matter what the province's share — would go into the capital reserve. Now the portion of the proceeds that's proportionate to the district's contribution can go into their local capital reserve, over which they have control.

           J. MacPhail: I assume this matter has been discussed with the school trustees. Has there been any ballpark value placed on what this would mean for school boards?

           Hon. C. Clark: No, I can't give the member a ballpark on it, but we have talked to school districts who have told us they are pleased with this change.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I'm curious as to when those discussions took place. Perhaps they took place after the annual general meeting of the School Trustees Association.

           There are two resolutions on record from the annual general meeting of the School Trustees Association — resolutions 39 and 40 — that were passed. One is that the B.C. School Trustees Association "request the Minister of Education to allow school districts to retain for local capital purposes the proceeds from the sale of district school buildings and/or sites." Perhaps she could address that one in the context of this legislation.

           Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, that is essentially what we're doing, except that rather than 100 percent of the money going into the local capital reserve, the amount that is proportionate to the contribution of the district originally in purchasing the asset will go to a local capital reserve.

           J. MacPhail: That's why I was asking what the ballpark figure would be for school boards. I had assumed that the annual general meeting would have been aware of the legislative implications when they passed this resolution. I'm trying to figure out why there's still a pursuit of this resolution by the School Trustees Association.

           If indeed in the past there was a shared purchase of an asset and then that asset was sold and 100 percent went into the provincial coffers, have the school trustees calculated what, in terms of lost opportunity cost and lost revenue, that's meant for them? Let me ask that question first.

           Hon. C. Clark: Let me correct the member. The portion that is proportionate to the provincial investment in the purchase of the property doesn't go into provincial coffers. It goes into the capital reserve. It stays in the district in their capital account, but that's controlled by the province. The difference between the capital reserve and the local capital reserve is that the local capital reserve is something over which the local school district has control.

           Did school districts calculate how much this would mean in lost opportunity for them? I don't have an an-

[ Page 3254 ]

swer to that. What were they thinking when they put forward the resolution? I'll quote my husband and tell the member that I am not psychic, so I don't know what they were thinking when they did it.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry. I thought the minister, the last time we discussed this legislation, was on the verge of meeting again with the School Trustees Association. I had asked that question on several other matters about issues that arose out of their annual general meeting. I just assumed that that meeting had taken place and that those matters had been explored.

           I'm curious, then. Let me read the next resolution passed by the AGM and see whether that's been discussed: "That BCSTA urge the Minister of Education to allow school boards to use the proceeds from assets originally purchased through local capital funds for operating or capital purposes, as they see fit."

[1525]

           Again, can the minister suggest what discussions, if any, have taken place? Is it her view that the legislative changes meet that request?

           Hon. C. Clark: No, it doesn't. We, as I said, will not allow school districts to use money from their capital account for operating. That's just not something we're contemplating. If the BCSTA would like to have a discussion about that, I'm happy to have a discussion with them about it. Although, I can tell the member now what my answer will be to that request. It will be no.

           J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out where it is that the line of autonomy is drawn. School boards are trying to figure out ways to meet their needs, and the government seems to be claiming that this is putting more money in the hands of school boards through sharing of sale of assets. Yet the portion of the sale of assets that was originally funded by the local school board and is being returned to them is still having restrictions drawn around it by the Minister of Education. Is that the understanding?

           Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we have granted school districts an unprecedented amount of autonomy in their ability to manage their own affairs. They are, I think, grateful for that ability. But we are not, at this stage, contemplating extending that autonomy to allow them to spend money from their capital budgets on operating.

           J. MacPhail: When is the minister meeting with the School Trustees Association to discuss these issues?

           Hon. C. Clark: We have not set a date, but of course, I'm always delighted to meet with the BCSTA. It's something I do very frequently. I'm in regular contact with Gordon Comeau, their president. We're here to help in the ministry, so I'm always delighted to meet with them.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry; I must have misunderstood the minister last time. She said that she was about to meet with the School Trustees Association to discuss these resolutions.

           In terms of the flexibility given to boards to do as they see best for meeting the increased pressures on their budgets, where is the line drawn? Is it simply that they've got flexibility within the frozen grant to them? Is that what it is? And then beyond that, it's under the minister's control about what they can do?

           Hon. C. Clark: First, the grants to school districts have not been frozen. Many of them have actually seen increases in their budget this year. They are able to look in their operating budget and move money around within that budget. We've been pretty clear about that. That's a new flexibility that they haven't had before, and I think they're delighted about it.

           J. MacPhail: Thank you to my colleague. Yes, we were under the impression that the minister did say last time that she had received the request to meet and was going to meet as soon as possible. So that's why I was under, I guess, the misapprehension that she was actually going to meet.

           Mr. Chair, these are matters that I assume the School Trustees Association will be looking for flexibility around in order to meet the cost pressures that are ever mounting with a…. Well, I guess we had news today that the Minister of State for Women's Equality had redone her budget and had transition funding. It would be nice to have the redone budget in an entire package across the board. We've got courthouses changing. We've got welfare changes. Gosh, we've got legal aid changes. We've got physician changes. It would be nice to know exactly what the budgets are of this government.

[1530]

           We certainly know, at least to date, that all of the new money for increased MSP premiums and cost pressures that the boards have had will not continue next year, so I would assume that next year, the second of a three-year budget that's been tabled with the school boards, will be frozen. It will be interesting to know how the school boards will have increased flexibility in order to meet the ever-mounting cost pressures. I expect school trustees from around the province will be looking exactly toward those asset sales for increased flexibility.

           Section 35 approved.

           On section 36.

           J. Kwan: This section deals with the provincial funding for the boards. My colleague and I have received 679 letters from Kootenay parents. The 679 letters are from concerned parents of children in the Kootenay region, and they have sent the letters to the Premier and to the Minister of Education outlining their concerns for the education system in B.C.

           The Beaver Valley Middle School PAC sent copies of these letters to us so that we, too, would be aware of

[ Page 3255 ]

the concerns and to ensure that the minister is aware of the concerns. What I'd like to do, Mr. Chair, is read the letter into the record. The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Sir or Madam:
           "I am deeply concerned about the devastating and unprecedented budget cuts that many of British Columbia's schools are facing over the next three years. Some school districts face drastic service cuts, and others are being forced to close schools.
           "Services, programs and resources for our children have already been subjected to successive cuts over the last decade. These new budget cuts will jeopardize the very future of public education. Our children will lose schools, teachers, programs and services that are critical to their support and achievement. All students will suffer, and more will be put at grave risk.
           "We're asking you to honour your government's promise to protect education and make it a priority and to not cut education funding. We're asking you to fund at the full amount the teachers' salaries and benefit costs that you legislated. By requiring school boards to pay for them, you're effectively making devastating cuts.
           "Restore the millions of dollars that many districts have lost because of your new funding system. Education is the best investment we can make in our province's future. If we don't invest in our children today, we'll all pay more tomorrow. Our children desperately need your help.
           "Thank you."

           These are the letters we have received — 679 of them in total.

           First, let me just ask if I could seek leave to table these letters in the form of a petition.

           Leave granted.

Petitions

           J. Kwan: Those are the 679 letters from concerned parents from the Kootenay region, and I've read their letter into the record with respect to where their concerns lie.

Debate Continued

           J. Kwan: Section 106.2 requires the minister to establish and announce the amount of provincial funding to be paid to boards in the next fiscal year by February 1. However, there is no mention of what formula will be used to make this determination. What formula will the minister be using to determine what amounts are available for provincial funding for education?

[1535]

           Hon. C. Clark: We announced the formula on March 1. We informed boards of that. We spent a fair amount of time with them doing that. I think we spent a fair amount of time having a discussion about this in the estimates process in the other chamber as well. That formula is a three-year formula.

           J. Kwan: Why doesn't section 106.2 of the bill include a description of the formula that is to be used to determine provincial funding available for education?

           Hon. C. Clark: The formula, according to this legislation, must be announced by March 15 every year. We've committed to having this current formula in place for three years, which is the most stability that districts have had in a long time.

           Previous governments have changed the formula every year, and school districts were working in a very chaotic and unpredictable atmosphere as a result. This funding formula is in place for three years, and school districts know that it will be stable, and they will know what to be able to expect.

           J. Kwan: The minister suggests that in previous years the education system has been in chaos and operating under a chaotic system.

           Here we have a new government with a new minister with her new funding formula, and school boards…

           An Hon. Member: More good news.

           J. Kwan: …across British Columbia are finding that educational programs are being cut. The member for Peace River North is suggesting that this is more good news. It is stunning. I have never heard from an MLA who would say that educational program cuts for their constituents and for the students in their own community is good news.

           Closures of schools are taking place across British Columbia. Students are going to be left in a situation where classrooms are going to be more crowded with less attention from the teachers. Special needs assistants, many of them, are going to be eliminated from the school system. Teacher-librarians are being taken out of the school system. Speech pathologists, who teach children so that they can break through the challenge they face and have an opportunity to advance as everybody else who doesn't face those challenges…. Their funding is being cut. Multicultural outreach workers, who assist students so that they can stay in the school system for a longer period of time, are being cut.

           All of those things and much more are under pressure. Those programs are being cut. Here we have the member for Peace River North saying: "More good news." That is absolutely stunning. Maybe he hasn't gone out to talk to the parents to find out what the parents have to say about the cuts in the education system.

           What we have over the next three years is reductions in the education area because of the pressures that are there in the education system, which are not being funded by this government. As a result of that….

           I just read into the record some 697 letters that had been sent from the Kootenay region from parents who are concerned about these cuts. The funding formula does not address their concern. It does not address their concern.

[ Page 3256 ]

           It is essential that everyone knows how the amount of funding is established, how it varies from previous years, what it might be in the future and in what context it is understood. To leave this out, quite frankly, is contrary to the notion of predictability and stability and transparency. So far the government has not met those objectives.

           In the act, section 106.3 is there for determining the final amount given to school boards, but it is based upon the available amount that the minister determines. Will the minister amend the preliminary amount allocated for provincial funding in order to ensure that non-district students are included in the funding allocation numbers for each district?

           Hon. C. Clark: We've announced the formula. It will be stable for the next three years. That's certainly an improvement on the way we've done education funding in the past. The legislation sets out March 15 as the date, and school districts had more time this year than they have had in many, many previous years to do their planning.

[1540]

           We anticipate that this change will mean that school districts have a much more stable environment in which to work. They have an ability to plan for the future. That's certainly going to improve the way that our education system operates.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It's good to join the debate. The member earlier — in a remark I made about more good news in relationship to a new government, a new era and stable funding for education — moved that into my inferring that I agreed with cuts that were happening and all those kinds of things which she lives in that small world about. It is not uncommon for that member to spread those kinds of rumours. They are rumours; they are fearmongering; they're all kinds of garbage. That is not untypical of that member. We've seen her do it time and time again.

           I would like to ask the Minister of Education: could she please confirm that school funding this year has stayed the same and, in fact, has increased? I think my school district in Peace River North received a little bit of extra money this year on top of an increase from last year. I would just like the Minister of Education to again tell us about some of that good news that's happened in British Columbia since we finally got rid of those socialists.

           Hon. C. Clark: I would like to thank the member for his question. What a good one it was. Indeed, as I've said a number of times in debates — perhaps I haven't said it this afternoon; I appreciate being reminded — not only have we protected the education budget in British Columbia, but we've increased it by $20 million. That is in the context of the largest governmentwide restructuring in British Columbia's history. Every other government in this country has undertaken a governmentwide restructuring. We're the last people to get onto this, but we are amongst the first to do a governmentwide restructuring and protect education funding.

           When you look across the country and you look at those restructurings that other provinces have done, you will see that they took an equal amount out of education and an equal amount out of health care to what they did in every other ministry. We chose not to do that. We chose a different way because we want to put students first, and education is at the top of our priority list. That's why we've increased education funding this year. We want to make sure that we have and continue to have a top-notch education system not just for this year but for every year to come.

           J. MacPhail: You know, it is very disappointing that this government stands up, after they've had repeated petitions that they've had to table…. Liberal MLAs stand up here at the end of question period and table petitions with thousands of signatures on them. The way they describe it is "people commenting on education funding." Maybe the fact that they can convince themselves that that's what the petition is, is good news for this government. They pound their tables, and we have questions about: "Did you cut funding, or did you increase the budget?" Literally thousands of parents have put their names to petitions that have had to be tabled by backbench MLAs and perhaps even some cabinet ministers — parents signing, saying: "We are deeply concerned about the cuts resulting from education funding."

           Why? Maybe this is why the deficit is $4.4 billion: because this government doesn't actually understand that you have funding and you have expenditures, and when the two don't match, it works out to a deficit. You know what? That's why we've got the largest deficit, under this government, ever in the history of B.C., and we have funding cuts in health and education. That's why.

[1545]

           Here we have the largest deficit ever in the history of British Columbia after receiving two balanced budgets and having the largest surplus handed over to this government. Here we have school boards in every single jurisdiction save one that are having to make cuts in programs, and the government cabinet member stands up and says: "Could you tell me whether you increased funding or not?"

           Here's the real question. Here's the real question that maybe the Minister of Energy simply hasn't been paying attention to. After you, Minister of Education, imposed a teachers' settlement worth $300 million, after you imposed MSP premium increases of over $20 million and after you moved to a funding formula that doesn't protect schools in rural areas, did you protect funding? That's the real question.

           Of course the backbenchers never ask that, and in fact, the cabinet ministers never ask that question either, because the answer to that would be: "No, I didn't give the money." The Minister of Education would have to say: "No, in fact, I imposed a teachers' settlement, and I didn't fund it. You're right; my government did increase MSP premiums, and no, I'm not funding that. No, that's true. We changed the system so no

[ Page 3257 ]

longer are rural schools protected." That's why about 60 of them are closing for the very first time — an unprecedented number of them closing in the history of British Columbia.

           If the trained seals pounding their desks wanted to ask that question, the Minister of Education would have to stand up and say: "No, I haven't funded those pressures. In fact, yes, there will be program cuts in every school district save one." In fact, the Minister of Management Services probably isn't standing up asking the question that the Minister of Energy and Mines does, because his school district is actually contemplating — I hope they've stepped back from this — massive school closures.

           The members from the Kootenays probably should have been tabling this letter from Kootenay parents that the Minister of Energy and Mines gets up and mocks. It isn't my colleague suggesting on her own that somehow there were cuts. It's 600 parents from one district worried sick about the cuts. Was that…?

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: The Minister of Energy and Mines accuses the parents of telling a lie.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm telling you you're telling a lie.

           J. MacPhail: He says it's untrue.

           The Chair: Order, members.

           J. MacPhail: The Minister of Energy and Mines says to these parents that it's untrue. Well, then I guess all the government has to do is write back to every single one of these parents in the Kootenays and say: "You've got it wrong. There won't be funding cuts. You've got it wrong." That's all that has to happen. Just stand up…. Instead of self-congratulatory bafflegab about, "Has funding been increased? Why, yes, it has," why doesn't this government come clean and say exactly what the funding levels mean for parents, students and communities in this province?

           Maybe the Minister of Management Services would like to stand up and contribute to what it says. Maybe the member for Yale-Lillooet would like to stand up and say what it means. I guess maybe any member who's present here could stand up. The Burnaby MLAs — let them stand up. The member for Burquitlam could stand up and say what funding by this government for individual school boards may mean.

[1550]

           At least this government should show respect for the very parents that they seem to want to be so incorporated into the system, for the over 600 parents from one district who write in and say: "We are deeply concerned about the devastating and unprecedented budget cuts that many of British Columbia's schools are facing over the next three years." You know what? Why don't we just have the minister stand up here and say, the way she did to the Minister Energy and Mines, "Don't worry," to these parents, to the Beaver Valley Middle School PAC? This is a parent advisory committee, the new heart and soul of this government's target audience. Say exactly why they shouldn't be concerned and why they're telling something that isn't the truth, as the Minister of Energy and Mines accuses them.

           Hon. C. Clark: The member is intentionally, I believe, mischaracterizing what the Minister of Energy and Mines said. Certainly, he did not attack the parents who wrote letters. That is just an absolute mischaracterization of what he said.

           I should say this too. I want to thank the member for her rant, for her lesson in mathematics, in budgeting, in good fiscal management. Thanks a lot.

           Perhaps she should have given that rant to some of her colleagues over the last decade as they were driving British Columbia into the deepest hole we've been in. Perhaps she should have given that rant to all the investors that have fled this province and taken their money and those jobs with them.

           Perhaps she should have given that rant to all the families who've been forced to leave, all the grandchildren who can no longer spend time with their grandparents because there aren't futures for them in their local communities anymore.

           Perhaps she could have given that rant when she was standing in front of the mirror when she was Minister of Finance for the worst government in British Columbia's history, a government that over a decade put British Columbia at the bottom of the list in this country, the bottom of the list in private sector investment, the bottom of the list in job growth, the bottom of the list by almost every measure in this country.

           We are dedicated to turning that around. This last budget is the beginning of that. We have been in a dark tunnel in British Columbia for a long time. It was this member and her government that put us there.

           We saw with the last budget a little pinprick of light for the very first time at the end of that tunnel. We are going to keep rushing toward that light until we are out in the full light of day finally, so that we have a government in British Columbia that actually represents the people and that believes in local communities, in the forest industry, in the mining industry, in the tourism industry, and is prepared to put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we put British Columbians finally back to work.

           The Chair: I just want to remind members….

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

           I just want to remind both sides of the House, please, to confine our remarks to section 36.

           J. Kwan: Section 36 relates to the funding formula and the funding formula that school boards get over the next three years.

[ Page 3258 ]

           We hear from the minister, ranting about how great a job she's doing in making sure that school boards cut education programs as a result of the lack of funding from this government in the area of education. The minister is full of rhetoric. The rhetoric extends not just from this minister but to every single Liberal MLA, back bench or front bench.

           We heard from the Minister of Energy and Mines, praising the government on the cuts in education programs. We heard from the Minister of State for Women's Equality, praising the government on the cuts in education programs. We heard the same thing from the Minister of Management Services, praising the cuts. He has forgotten…. Oh, he's a full minister, but you can't tell the difference. I mean, God, there's so many of them. You don't know what they actually really do other than to cut programs for British Columbians who are in greatest need.

           You have the Minister of Management Services. He must not be home very often, because close to 700 concerned parents from his own community have sent in a petition calling on the government to fully fund and support the teachers' salaries and benefits that were legislated by this government, calling on the government to restore the millions of dollars that many districts have lost because of the new funding formula, which we're discussing under section 36 today.

[1555]

           That's not all. That's only from one school district for a short period of time. They have gathered this many signatures. In my own community in Vancouver there were over 12,000 letters sent to the minister from Save Our Schools. That was a host of people, and the minister keeps on wanting to minimize and mock that group as though they're not relevant, as though somehow their voice has no role to play.

           It is absolutely stunning. Let me educate the minister just a little bit about who Save Our Schools are.

           "Save Our Schools was launched in Vancouver in early April by a diverse group of parents who were concerned that proposed education cuts would hurt all children and jeopardize our province's public education system. This movement began as a grass-roots response to across-the-board education cuts proposed by the Vancouver school board, which was facing an unprecedented $25 million budget shortfall for next year.
           "Our ad hoc non-partisan group was founded by concerned parents Maureen Bayless and Judy Thau and is being led by PAC reps and parents from all areas of the city and all walks of life. We have also received extensive support from our DPAC and from our schools and communities."

           The minister likes to claim that she'd like to listen to parents. Here we have 12,000 signatures from parents, some of them involved in PACs, involved in DPACs, calling on the government to stop their cuts in the educational programs for students in British Columbia. The minister sits there and mocks the group, writing them off as though they don't count, as though somehow they're there for a partisan purpose.

           They're there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is for the educational opportunities for their students. They are saying that this government has cheated the students of educational opportunities by imposing such a huge set of pressures in the funding areas for schools all across British Columbia. That relates to this section of the bill around the funding formula we're now debating.

           On the education cuts, the SOS continues to say:

           "Our provincial government promised to make education a top priority and to protect education funding. However, the government legislated increases for teachers' pay and other benefits but did not give school boards additional funding to cover the increases for 2002-03 or for further increases legislated for 2003-04.
           "This means school boards must make cuts to pay for the extra costs. The new provincial funding formula has also meant reduced funding for many school districts, which now have to choose between cutting essential services or closing schools. SOS parents represent diverse interests, and we agree that instead of fighting amongst ourselves for shares of an inadequate budget, we would stand up together to call for properly funded public schools.
           "We are not alone. Many schools and communities across B.C. are organizing their own campaigns against the education funding shortfall, including Richmond, Coquitlam, Kitimat and Chilliwack" — just to name a few."

           I know that the parents didn't have very much time to do this work. When I learned of what they were doing, I was absolutely astounded from the point of view that in a short period of time, they were able to gather some 12,000 signatures by way of a petition to the government. They invited the government to come and receive this petition, and you know what, hon. Chair? The minister couldn't be bothered to show up to receive the petition.

           In less than 12 days they have gathered over 12,000 signatures, and the minister couldn't be bothered to pick up the petition from them. You know why? The minister says these people aren't important. She mocks them; she mocks their efforts. She discounts these individuals. The Minister of Energy and Mines pounds his desk as though these cuts are somehow a good thing for the students in British Columbia, as though some 12,000 parents across the province are wrong in terms of the impacts of the cuts from this government.

           Just for informing the House, let us go into this matter a little bit on cuts for other school boards. For all the MLAs who are sitting silent, I wonder where they are. They're sitting silent, not asking one question of this minister about the funding formula and the shortfall in the funding that impacts their schools and their students.

[1600]

           Not only are they silent, they are pounding their desks and barking, saying, "This is wonderful, wonderful. Make more cuts," and that's somehow a good thing.

           Let's look at the Alberni area. What's the Alberni district faced with? Two million dollars' worth of shortfall. What are the cuts? They are 15.7 full-time teaching positions; up to 20 teacher assistants; maintenance workers; even the bus drivers are at risk; 2½ clerical

[ Page 3259 ]

positions. Non-enrolling teachers will also have their hours reduced, including librarians.

           Burnaby school district. I'm waiting to hear whether or not the members from Burnaby will rise up to raise these issues: a $7.5 million shortfall; 80 teaching positions, including classroom teachers, ESL teachers; librarians; counsellors; 20 janitorial positions; cuts to the supplies, to the bus routes and to career programs.

           I'd like to hear the members from Burnaby rise in this House and tell parents that a $7.5 million shortfall in the Burnaby school district is a good thing for the students there, that cutting ESL teachers…. The member for Burnaby North knows — I know he knows — that in the area of Burnaby there is great need for ESL teachers and ESL training for the students. They're now faced with cuts in this area as a result of this government's and this minister's shortsightedness and lack of priority in the area of education.

           Coquitlam. What happened to the silent member from Coquitlam? There's a $6.9 shortfall. Curriculum experts, groundskeepers and resource staff are being eliminated — the groups of people that make the school system work. Those people are now going to be eliminated. There's $6.9 million worth of shortfall in Coquitlam. That's the minister's own riding, and she's not coming forward to advocate for her students. No, she's not. She's saying: "Well, you know, your concerns are irrelevant. We protected funding." The minister knows, and knows very well, that what she's done is cut educational funding. How is the minister justifying the funding formula that results in reduced funding for schools boards and for the students in British Columbia?

           Kootenay — the Minister of Management Services. In the Kootenay-Columbia school district eight schools are going to be closing as a result of the budget shortfall, the budget pressures caused by this government.

           Langley schools — the Minister of State for Women's Equality. There's a $6.5 million shortfall. Maybe the Minister of State for Women's Equality should go and talk to the school trustee, Diane Pona. Here's what she had to say: "This particular government I don't believe has a clue about what education is." And the minister says: "Been there, done that."

           Actually, maybe she did meet with them; I don't know. But when the women's centres coalition wanted to meet with the Minister of State for Women's Equality, do you know what she said to them? "I'll meet with you provided that (a) you don't go to the media and (b) you don't make me angry." That's what happened, hon. Chair.

           The Chair: Member, on section 36, please.

           J. Kwan: The Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district. There's a $7 million shortfall. Proposed cuts: 45 teaching positions, 11 support staff, four administrative workers, increased class sizes between grades 4 and 12.

           New West. Where is the member from New West? It is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. I guess she's busy trying to just be a mouthpiece for the minister, because she has done nothing to protect education.

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Member. Member, would you please confine your remarks to section 36.

           J. Kwan: Section 36….

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Order, order. Please, your remarks to section 36.

[1605]

           J. Kwan: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chair.

           In the New West area there's a $2.3 million shortfall. Where is the funding formula that justifies a $2.3 million shortfall in the New West area? We have cuts — 24 teaching positions being eliminated; ending the community education night school program; eliminating some of the crossing guards; even cancelling early French immersion programs that were meant to start during the upcoming school year. That is what New West is facing as a result of the funding formula that is being imposed by this government. This minister says it is somehow better for the students when we see crossing guards being eliminated, night school programs being eliminated, French immersion programs not being able to start as a result of the funding shortfall that this government has created in the area of education.

           North Van school district. Where are the members from North Van school district? There's a $6.7 million shortfall; increased class size in grades 4 to 7; increased fees for band programs, outdoor school and summer school; aging furniture and equipment that won't be replaced.

           Prince George school district: $9.2 million shortfall; 160 teaching positions this year and an additional 57 next year will be cut; 12 school closures, including four rural schools — McLeod Lake, Hixon and Bear Lake Elementary Schools and Blackburn Junior Secondary School. How is that funding formula helpful for the students in Prince George? How is it helpful?

           Then we have Quesnel school district, with about a million dollars' worth of shortfall and two elementary school closures. To help address a budget shortfall of more than $1 million, the Quesnel school district board of trustees decided to proceed with plans to close Wells Barkerville and Rich Bar Elementary Schools in September. Students from the Wells Barkerville Elementary School will be bused 77 kilometres one way from Wells to Barlow Creek Elementary School. Barlow Creek Elementary is 11 kilometres northeast of Quesnel on the Barkerville Highway. Twelve teaching positions will be eliminated, and there will also be a reduction in the school trustees from seven to five.

           Saanich. Where are the members from Saanich? There's a $1.5 million shortfall. Three special needs

[ Page 3260 ]

education assistants, 22 full-time teaching positions, 20 support staff, four administrators…. McTavish and Sansbury Elementary Schools will have to share one principal. That is as a result of the funding formula now before the House under Bill 34.

           Sooke: $3 million shortfall, 26 classroom teachers….

           The Chair: Member, your time has expired.

           J. Kwan: Okay. I am going to ask the minister this question, then. How does this funding formula assist these schools when they're faced with all these pressures? As a result of the funding shortfall, they're going to lose the supports they need in the school system for the children.

           Hon. C. Clark: As I explained to the member a number of times in estimates, the funding formula has not penalized districts — not the actual funding formula itself. In fact, I think what she's doing is confusing two things. She's confusing the structure of the way we distribute the money, which is what we're discussing in this legislation, versus how much money is distributed.

           I want to make two points about that. On the second, as I've said, we have increased the amount of money that is allocated to the Education budget this year by $20 million. While she stands up and sort of cavalierly says this means that districts have their budgets cut and that all of them have their budgets frozen, it's simply not true. There are many districts that are seeing their budgets increased. Some of them are seeing their budgets increased by millions of dollars.

           While she stands up and makes these cavalier statements, just because she makes them in the Legislature certainly doesn't make them true. They are not; they are incorrect. The budget for the Ministry of Education has been increased by $20 million this year, despite the fact that there are fewer children to educate because we have declining enrolments. Many districts have seen increases in their budgets.

           The funding formula provides districts with a great deal more flexibility to be able to manage their own budgets internally. This is something, and this is important to note, that districts asked us for — not just asked this government for but asked the previous government for again and again and again. They said: "Look, we're locally elected. We're accountable to the people that we represent. We know our communities. We know the priorities here. Let us manage our own budgets and decide how we will allocate the money within that."

[1610]

           We've done that with this funding formula. We've untied most of the strings we used to attach to this, strings that Victoria attached, frankly, because I don't think Victoria, at the political level, trusted local school trustees to make the right decisions.

           Well, I do. I take a different view from the previous government. I think that locally elected school trustees are capable of making good decisions that reflect the needs of their local communities. I think that's why they're elected, and that's why they're empowered to do that by law. I understand that is a different view from the previous government, but it is a view, frankly, that local school boards welcome. That is the impact of the funding formula. It's a formula that allows school districts a whole lot more discretion in allocating money within their own budget, and they appreciate that ability to be able to make those decisions. You know what? Unlike the previous government, we trust school boards. We respect the law that gives them the responsibility to make these decisions because they are locally elected.

           J. Kwan: You know what? Only this minister and the government-bench MLAs, including ministers, would justify the cuts in education and say that somehow they're protecting education. You know what? The minister just praised the school trustees. She just praised the school trustees and said she trusts them and trusts their judgment.

           Well, here's what Gordon Comeau had to say, the president of the trustees association. Here's what he had to say about the province's education budget cut, which is about $300 million over the next three years: "Protected is not an accurate reflection; it's just a play on words. Cuts are happening, and they're happening in the classroom. Schools are going down."

           This is the president of the trustees association — not my words. The minister always accuses that everybody else is wrong, particularly my colleague and I, on all these issues. Then she just finished praising the school trustees and how she trusts their judgment. Well, here's what they had to say about the minister and this government's cuts.

           Interjection.

           J. Kwan: She thinks it's funny. She laughs about it, because she thinks, perhaps, that they're wrong. But you know what? It's not a laughing matter. Schools and students are being hurt because of this government's action. They are being hurt, and the member for Chilliwack-Sumas is saying that this is fearmongering. You know what? Maybe he hasn't spoken with his parents, because Save Our Schools, which is a non-partisan group that has been collecting petitions and raising the matter with members in this House and with the minister, to which the minister didn't even have the decency to go and receive their petition….

           Chilliwack is collecting petitions on this issue. Where is the member from Chilliwack? Is he there to support the parents? Is he there to hear the concerns of the parents? No. He's here thumping the desk, saying: "Hurray for cuts to education programs for students in British Columbia."

           What about other areas? I just finished advising the House that in the area of Saanich, people are faced with tremendous cuts: $1.5 million of shortfall.

[ Page 3261 ]

           Sooke: $3 million of shortfall, 26 classroom teachers are being cut, four behavioral specialists are being cut, two teacher librarians are being cut, ten teaching assistants positions are being cut, a youth and family counsellor is being cut, closures of two special education offices are taking place, and increased class sizes between grades 4 and 12 are taking place as a result of the lack of funding from this government that this government is now legislating in place through Bill 34.

           Surrey school district. The Surrey–Green Timbers MLA. I heard her barking and clapping, saying how great it is for the government to cut education funding. A $17 million shortfall in the school district of Surrey. Special needs education is being eliminated.

           Richmond. Where are the Richmond MLAs? Where are they? Are they in this House? Are they raising the matters? A $9.6 million shortfall and 156 teaching positions including ESL and learning assistance. I know Richmond very well. There are a lot of multicultural students there who need ESL support. Well, 156 teaching positions including ESL and learning assistance are going to be eliminated.

[1615]

           I already mentioned the Vancouver school district. Where are the Vancouver MLAs? Are they in the House? Where's the member for Vancouver-Kingsway? We often hear him bark and cheer about how great the cuts are for this government. Well, Vancouver is faced with $25.5 million worth of shortfall, 200 full-time teaching positions are being eliminated, and 121 other full-time positions and 9.5 multicultural home school workers are being eliminated. I know how much need there is in Vancouver-Kingsway for multicultural workers, and 9.5 of those are going to be gone.

           Then they're going to be increasing fees. Particularly for the low-income parents, the increased fees are another way for this government to impose taxes, new taxes for parents. They say they've given parents a tax break. What they've really done is…. On the one hand they've pretended they've given, but on the other hand, they have taken a larger share than they've given, particularly for the low-income parents in British Columbia.

           Victoria. Where are the MLAs for Victoria-Hillside and Victoria–Beacon Hill? Where are they? There's a $6.4 million shortfall; 58 full-time teaching positions; a $50,000 cut to the gifted programs.

           I was on the Education Committee, with which I travelled with many of the members to hear from the public. At the end I resigned from that committee because the report was not going to reflect what people said and what we heard. You know what? We heard from parents who were concerned about the gifted program. They were very concerned about the students' opportunities because there was not enough funding there, they said.

           Now what do we have? Cuts to the gifted program; 6.4 special needs education teachers are being cut; elementary and secondary school staff positions are being cut. There's an increase in class sizes for grades 4 and 8. Management positions are also being eliminated in the school district of greater Victoria.

           These are just some of the items that I'm putting onto the record here. I don't hear any of the government-bench MLAs, whether front bench or back bench, raising these concerns on behalf of their constituents.

           The funding formula that is before us under Bill 34, where the minister is saying, "It's not the funding formula. We're not cutting education programs…." Well, everybody else is saying that education programs are being cut. The funding formula is creating a situation where there's less money for many of the school districts.

           The minister is suggesting that somehow these numbers are not correct, as though somehow I've made them up and I'm fearmongering. Well, you know what? These figures came from the school boards themselves. The minister said she trusts their judgment. Here's what they've had to say and do, as a result of the lack of commitment, the broken promise, by this government and this minister. She said she would protect education, when in reality the end result is that school boards are faced with unprecedented funding pressures. As a result, they've had to cut educational programs all throughout British Columbia.

           Hon. C. Clark: I think I've been clear in my previous comments to the member's latest rant, not dissimilar to the comments I've made to all the member's rants today.

           At this stage I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1620]

           Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Calling Committee of the Whole. For the information of members, we will be debating in committee stage Bill 36.

Committee of the Whole House

ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 36; H. Long in the chair.

           The committee met at 4:21 p.m.

           On section 1.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, the nature of my questions will be to use the answers to these questions in comparison to debate on matters that will be addressed later in the Legislature, later this session — perhaps not

[ Page 3262 ]

this sitting but later this session — in terms of changes to other pieces of legislation concerning land use.

           I would ask the minister to keep that in mind. They are questions for information, but they will be compared against changes now being addressed either in legislation, White Papers or community discussions elsewhere.

           In section 1, section 12(3), it's amending section 12(3) of the Coal Act. It appears that the legislation is designed to eliminate duplication regarding the use of on-site aggregate materials. Perhaps the minister could explain specifically what the requirements were before and what that amendment does — the amendment that he's passing today — to change those requirements.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: All this does is allow coalmines to use aggregate on site for their on-site roads, something they've never had before. Mineral mines have always had the ability to do that. This just extends that same right to coalmines.

           J. MacPhail: But it removes a requirement for a licence under the Land Act. Am I wrong in that, or is that wrong?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: You're correct.

           J. MacPhail: So it removes the requirement for a licence under the Land Act. Is there a provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity remaining anywhere?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: You'd have to have an operating mine. This wouldn't just apply to anybody. You'd have to have a mine that's in operation and that requires this kind of aggregate.

           J. MacPhail: The question was: is there remaining anywhere, in any legislation, a provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity? Or by this amendment, does it remove all requirements for a licence under the Land Act?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: For coalmines.

[1625]

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Is the member saying, in answer to my question of if there is any provision for requiring a licence for this type of activity remaining: "With coalmines"? Is that what the answer is?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: For coalmines. It's already in place for mineral mines.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, but it's removing a provision for a licence under the Land Act, so all that remains is a licence for coalmines. Is that correct?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize if I'm not understanding her question. If it applies to anything other than a coalmine once this is in effect — or what is, in effect, already a mineral mine — there is no requirement.

           Section 1 approved.

           On section 2.

           J. MacPhail: Again, I remind the minister that these answers are in preparation for debate, particularly on changes that are now being discussed in a consultation forum around the Forest Practices Code that's actually going on elsewhere. As I understand it, section 2 removes the requirement of permits for licensees to be subject to the higher-level plans under the Forest Practices Code. This is one of several references in section 2 where the bill gives us a glance at changes to the Forest Practices Code. On May 1 the Minister of Forests released a White Paper on the new code, to be followed by legislation next fall. That period was to allow for consultation with stakeholders before the changes to the forest practices come down.

           However, as I noted in my second reading comments, this bill is making changes to the Forest Practices Code and clearly indicates the kind of changes we can expect. For example, section 2 says that coal tenure holders wanting to build a road to a site will no longer be required to comply with the Forest Practices Code requirements. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Energy and Mines could give us some clarity around the consultation process for changes to the Forest Practices Code. The White Paper on those changes is circulating now, with a promise to consult.

           This is the first example under Bill 36 of imposed changes to the Forest Practices Code that are exempting the mining industry from major requirements of the code. Is it a two-part consultation? Was there a first part of consultation for changes to the Forest Practices Code that occurred that I don't know about, which led to these exemptions from the Forest Practices Code for the mining industry?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Just as a clarification, the Forest Practices Code and the White Paper…. I understand where the member is coming from. You can discuss that with the Minister of Forests. That's not in my ministry to deal with. There are no applicable higher-level plans at the present time in the province. All we are doing is saying here that higher-level plans are not applicable to coalmines anymore. Later on we'll deal with….

[1630]

           J. MacPhail: That's exactly the point: there are higher-level plans being discussed right now, in fact, where communities have reached higher-level plans, and this government now has them under review, I assume, for reversal. By deleting this now, it doesn't even give an opportunity for plans to have to legally incorporate Forest Practices Code restrictions.

           Is it the minister's view, then, as part of a cabinet, that he can go ahead and amend the application of the

[ Page 3263 ]

Forest Practices Code separate and apart from what is supposed to be a wide-ranging public consultation on the Forest Practices Code? Is that what he meant by saying: "It's not my job, man"?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The responsibilities of the forest are with the Ministry of Forests and the Minister of Forests. That's what I was referring to.

           This is pretty straightforward. There are no applicable higher-level plans in the province right now. What we're saying in the purposes of this section as they apply to coalmines…. Actually, they will not apply to coalmines. Let me reverse that. Higher-level plans will not apply to coalmines.

           J. MacPhail: Exactly. It's good that I'm actually putting these on record, because others who think that they're being consulted on changes to the Forest Practices Code will stand up at those consultations and say: "Hey, wait a minute."

           This government has a little silo mentality. The Minister of Energy and Mines is over there amending the Forest Practices Code, watering it down, removing it from application, and he says it's not his responsibility to consult. That's the Minister of Forests' job. Meanwhile, the legislation is being rammed through the House.

           People going to this Forest Practices Code consultation might say to the Minister of Forests: "How can we trust you when the person sitting right next to you, the Minister of Energy and Mines, has already gutted a major part of the Forest Practices Code?"

           The minister stands up and says: "It's not my responsibility." Then he also says — by virtue of the actions of this government, this government specifically — that there are no higher-level plans in place because they've stalled and stalled on putting them through, with giving them cabinet approval — that this is really unnecessary.

           I'm very glad that we had this dialogue, or lack thereof, for the record so that people can approach those theoretically open consultations around the Forest Practices Code, using exactly the record of the words of the Minister of Energy and Mines. That's all I wanted to achieve.

           The Chair: Shall sections 2 through 10 pass?

           Leader of the Opposition.

           J. MacPhail: I have a series of questions. Is it okay if I ask them?

           Sections 2 and 3 approved.

           On section 4.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't know whether someone else had indicated that we didn't have a series of questions. We certainly did, and it's for the record, as I keep reminding the Minister of Energy and Mines.

           In section 4 we have a section from the actual Forest Practices Code that is repealed. This section removes the reference of higher-level plans as an objective for resource management zones, so the minister can't get away with saying that there are no higher-level plans in place. This is actually there as an objective for resource management zones, and the government has removed the reference to that from sections in the Mineral Tenure Act and the Coal Act.

           Could the minister explain what consultation has taken place to repeal this section of the Forest Practices Code?

[1635]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The consultations that took place were interministry, amongst ministries that would be affected, on the changes. Again I say, because there are no applicable higher-level plans in place, that we did talk at length to the Ministry of Forests about this.

           J. MacPhail: There are higher-level plans being addressed throughout this province now, which this government has put on hold — several of them.

           This section isn't to do with higher-level plans that are in place; it's an objective that has to be met as higher-level plans are being designed. This is a major change to the Forest Practices Code. What consultation took place on this change, outside of government?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: This is not a huge change. This was done in consultation with the Ministry of Forests and with their agreement.

           You would almost think, the way the member argues now, that when her government was in power for ten years, they could have put in place some applicable higher-level plans. They obviously didn't. They had ten years to do it and didn't do any.

           All it is are impediments to being able to have coalminers and mineral miners go out there and mine and do it in an environmentally sensitive way. All we're doing is removing some of this wording that sends the wrong message to the people who we want to get back in British Columbia to start creating wealth and jobs in this province again.

           J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, I'm glad we're having this discussion. These words will shape many, many future discussions. As always, the Minister of Energy and Mines's words are little nuggets of provocation, for sure.

           As far as that minister suggesting somehow that his land use decisions by his government will provide a sustainable future for this province, I'll match my record against his record any day.

           You're right; it does send a signal. The minister's absolutely right; it sends a signal to say: "Hey, don't worry about sustainability. Come on in and do whatever you wish with the land." The members from the Liberal back bench think this is just wonderful. What it absolutely does is say to the province that any consultation we may promise you British Columbians around

[ Page 3264 ]

changes to the Forest Practices Code are hollow and an absolute sham. At the same time that the Minister of Forests is suggesting in some way that the public will have input into the changes to the Forest Practices Code, this minister is introducing and passing changes without comment from anybody except the opposition on major repeal of the Forest Practices Code.

[1640]

           Well, if indeed the minister somehow suggests, along with all of his colleagues on the back bench who say, "Yeah, yeah. Use the land for whatever you wish regardless of sustainability…." No one else in the world is talking the way these Liberal backbenchers talk — no one else in the world. It's from a bygone era. I don't want to say a neanderthal bygone era because that would be inappropriate parliamentary language, Mr. Chair, but maybe there's some period between neanderthal and modern day. I'm just trying to think of what it would be. I'll try and come up with the term. I'll just try and see whether there is some term. You know why it's hard for me to think of any term? It's because the rest of the world is so far ahead of this government in terms of land use that no term comes to mind in modern-day memory to describe this Liberal government around the issues of land use, Mr. Chair.

           Let me ask this question. What will replace, under section 4, higher-level plans in this context?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm not going to get into a debate about the White Paper out there. I'm not going to get into a debate about the whole Forest Practices Code. I'm not going to get into a debate about land use that the member seems to want to go on a rant about. I am going to say again — it's pretty simple; it's pretty straightforward — that there are no applicable higher-level plans in the province of British Columbia. These kinds of things were sending a negative message to the industry to come to British Columbia, and we're just removing that. That will send a different message.

           I shouldn't really have to remind the member, but when you talk about land in British Columbia…. The member stands up and talks about, you know, how we just are inviting the world in to ruin all our land and all those kinds of things. That's a bit bizarre and a bit ridiculous and not uncommon coming from that side of the House. The member should know that at the present time, with only 75 percent of the province that have finished their land use plans, there's already 12.5 percent in parks. Now, that's further ahead than anywhere else.

           J. MacPhail: It's got nothing to do with you. You're trying to undo it.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No, we're not trying to undo it. The member sits over there and says we're trying to undo it. No, we are in fact finishing off those land use plans, and I think in estimates you went through that with the minister responsible. Whether thanks to me or to this government or whatever, in British Columbia there is at the present time 12.5 percent in parks set aside. It's a huge amount of hectares.

           I guess part of the problem with the member is that she doesn't get out and about enough to see the size of the province and how much beautiful British Columbia we have. The mining industry only takes up less than 0.03 percent of the total land base and provides good jobs. It's environmentally sound. It provides good revenue to the province.

           Above all, each and every one of us in this House — or I don't care where you are — consumes on a daily basis a huge amount of minerals. Some of those minerals are still produced in British Columbia — not many, by the way, since 1990. We're trying to get that turned around. We're trying to get it to a point where we actually get back into producing lots of mineral and lots of coal in the province, because there is a need for it. There is a need for it worldwide.

           The member talks about the rest of world being miles ahead of us. Well, in Germany they have about 2 percent in parks. I think, in fact, it's less than that. On the graph you can hardly read it. The UK has about the same — all those places that tell us we should be cleaning up.

           Well, we've got 12.5 percent in parks. I'm not taking credit for it. It happened, but I think the Liberal opposition at the time voted with the government to set aside 12 percent of the province in parks. They went along with it — complicit, as you might say. They agreed with you, and we have 12.5 percent. The mining industry, I remind you again, uses 0.03 percent of the land base and creates some very good jobs. All we want to do is encourage that. We don't want to pillage the land base. There is no intent to do that.

[1645]

           The mining industry has a record in British Columbia second to none for environment and health and safety. We want to maintain that; we will maintain that. The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has consistently said that. I have consistently said that. We will do it environmentally soundly.

           J. MacPhail: Who asked for this change?

           The Chair: Shall section 4 pass? Leader of the Opposition.

           J. MacPhail: I asked the minister who asked for this change to this. Was it the mining industry?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It wasn't just the mining industry. It's the investment community, but it's also within government. Indications have been given to us from our own ministries, not just mine, that we have to do something — the Ministry of State for Deregulation is one of them also — to change how we're viewed in British Columbia by the investment community. We're responding in this way.

           J. MacPhail: It's interesting. I'd be interested to know how the minister consults with the investment

[ Page 3265 ]

community. I'd like to know how the minister does that. Is there some body that has sprung up in the last couple of months or something that represents the investment community? If the mining industry asked for this, did the minister go to the Minister of Forests and say: "Hey look, I want to do this for the investment community and the mining industry. Is it okay with you"? Did the minister do that?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: After spending ten years in opposition watching the member's government operate, I can understand that they wouldn't know anything about an investment community. That's pretty obvious. They wouldn't know anything about a mining industry because they booted them out of the province. It's pretty understandable how they wouldn't know that.

           There is an investment community. There's a mining community. There are people out there that actually want to come to British Columbia now and look seriously at the province for investments.

           J. MacPhail: Why doesn't the minister put his money where his words are? Tell me who the investment community is that he's talking about. Just name names — that's all. Educate me.

           After that, he can tell me what the discussion was when he went to the Minister of Forests and said: "Is it okay if I make this change prior to your White Paper going out?"

           Hon. R. Neufeld: We're trying to educate you. We're changing. This is section 4 of the bill. We're removing the term "applicable higher level plan."

           J. MacPhail: I'm just so curious as to why the Minister of Energy and Mines can't answer straightforward questions. He said he met with the investment community. They asked for this. I'm just asking him to name names — that's all. He can't answer the question. Hmm, I wonder why he can't answer the question. Would it be because it's too difficult for him, or has he forgotten?

           Did the Minister of Energy and Mines get approval from the Minister of Forests to repeal this section of the Forest Practices Code before his White Paper went out?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the Minister of Forests has agreed to the removal of this. As I talked about earlier, we actually did this in consultation with the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The list goes on and on.

           Actually, I don't quite know how the member used to do it, but we circulated this pretty widely within the ministries that we have to deal with on these issues. Yes, we did consult with the Ministry of Forests.

           J. MacPhail: Just to be clear for the record, the Minister of Energy and Mines went to the Minister of Forests and said, "I want to make these changes to delete sections from the Forest Practices Code that affect land use," and the Minister of Forests said: "Oh sure, go ahead." Then the Minister of Forests' public statement is: "I'm going to do a consultation on changes to the Forest Practices Code."

[1650]

           I just want to make sure I've got the order accurate so that we can judge the credibility of the consultation that the Minister of Forests is now conducting around proposed changes to the Forest Practices Code. There'll be questions exactly the same on other sections as well.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the member….

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Pardon, minister.

           Unparliamentary language in the chamber is inappropriate.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: There were discussions. Obviously, the member was in government before; she knows how these take place. There are discussions at a higher level from ministry to ministry. There are discussions between ministers on what's taking place.

           Actually, in this government we've introduced something that was never here before, and that's the committee process, where the minister actually has to go to the committee and go through the legislation line by line and talk to the committees — the Committee on Natural Resources would be the one I would go and talk to about this issue — and have their approval also.

           It may seem funny to her, because I know how they introduced bills. I know how it went before, because I sat over there and watched it many times, where ministers would stand up and introduce something that no one else knew about in that government.

           Again, we're dealing with this section. I'm not dealing with the Ministry of Forests issues. You can debate with the Minister of Forests all you want, when the times comes, about these issues.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sure the Minister of Forests will be delighted to know how his colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines has just made a sham out of his public consultation on Forest Practices Code changes — just an absolute sham out of it, by his own words.

           It wasn't as if I didn't warn him. It wasn't as if he was duped into it. I stood up and said: "Mr. Chair, the comments from this debate will be used to reflect further discussions on other activities taking place in the government." And the minister went holus-bolus distancing himself from his colleague the Minister of Forests — in fact, blaming his colleague, saying: "Oh yeah, if the Minister of Forests said sure, that was fine. Go ahead and do it."

           Gosh, that White Paper. Let me see. I wonder how meaningful that White Paper is now that we have the mining industry getting its way on changes to the Forest Practices Code.

[ Page 3266 ]

           All I wanted, Mr. Chair, was a for-the-record discussion.

           Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

           On section 8.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I have an amendment to section 8 as follows:

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed section 8.]

           The Chair: The proper method here is to vote against the section.

           Section 8 negatived.

           J. MacPhail: Could I ask some questions on it? Would that be okay? Sorry, Mr. Chair. Is it okay if I ask some questions on the amendment?

           The Chair: Proceed.

           J. MacPhail: Thank you very much. Yeah, that'd be helpful.

           I notice the government's got a new technique of introducing amendments and then not explaining them. So for the record, which Hansard is, perhaps the minister…. I would just make a general request of government executive council members to actually explain amendments.

[1655]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize for that. Actually, section 8 was put in by mistake. It already has been done in a previous act, so it's already taken care of. That's all it is. We would be redoing something. It hadn't been caught up to by legislative counsel. That's all.

           On section 9.

           J. MacPhail: Here's a section that removes the requirement of mineral title holders to be issued a permit, subject to an applicable higher-level plan in the Forest Practices Code. I know the minister will probably stand up and say: "Well, there are no higher-level plans." It's sort of like saying: "You know what, British Columbia? You won't miss anything that you didn't have."

           Gee, that's a great world we're moving toward, isn't it? Maybe some sustainability requirements, some planning requirements pursuant to the Forest Practices Code. Don't even worry your pretty little head about it, British Columbia, because it would only have been in the future that you might have had access to this. We see how this Minister of Energy and Mines is already dismantling essential protections, essential elements, of the Forest Practices Code, whether they be proactive or reactive.

           Gosh, I know what question I have. Has the consultation around the Forest Practices Code been cancelled? Maybe the Minister of Energy and Mines knows that.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it has not been cancelled. This is the same discussion we had before. It deals with the Mineral Tenure Act instead of the Coal Act. They're exactly the same issues that we canvassed here for an hour already.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I hope the minister isn't getting tired of the discussion, because they're just pretty straightforward questions that I forewarned him would be used in the public domain.

           Let's see. Okay, the Forest Practices Code consultation is going ahead, but here we are repealing sections of the Forest Practices Code that would apply to the mining industry. Hmm.

           Is the mining industry excluded from the consultations? Are they barred from participating in the Forest Practices Code consultation? Is that why these amendments had to be rushed through prior to the policy paper, the White Paper, of the Forest Practices Code being discussed? Did the Minister of Forests say: "Under no circumstances am I going to allow the mining industry to participate in the consultation around changes to the Forest Practices Code"? Is that why the minister had to rush these changes through?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No.

           J. MacPhail: Why is it, then, that changes that meet the needs of the mining industry are being rushed through when no one else gets to have their changes to the Forest Practices Code rushed through prior to the consultation? What's going on? What's special about the mining industry?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'm not going to go into the whole debate about higher-level plans and how they apply to the mineral industry and the coal industry. We are simply removing the section that says "applicable higher level plan."

           J. MacPhail: Maybe, then, the minister could contribute to the discussion that's going on out there in the real world on consultation around the Forest Practices Code. How do these changes that he's ramming through affect land use planning in the province? Perhaps he could just give us a sense of how land use planning will take place now that these changes are being made.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: There will be no impact on land use planning in British Columbia.

           I wish to correct the member. We're not ramming anything through. This has been on the order paper for a while. It went through first reading, and it went through second reading. We are now doing it section by section. If you want to take 48 days to do it, that's fine with me. We can sit here for as long as you want. It's not ramming anything through. It's making some changes.

[1700]

           J. MacPhail: The minister misunderstands what the definition of "ramming through" with this government is.

[ Page 3267 ]

           On the one hand, this minister is introducing changes to the Forest Practices Code that repeal sections of the Forest Practices Code that do affect land use planning. For the minister to stand up and say that it doesn't affect land use planning clearly indicates that he's not on top of his game here.

           What "ramming through" is…. There are 60 days of public consultation going on to the Forest Practices Code that are then supposed to result in changes to the Forest Practices Code. This minister is ramming it through prior to that consultation being completed. That's all.

           Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

           On section 12.

           J. MacPhail: What's the purpose of this section, please?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: What's happening here is that we're putting in place the ability for the ministry to toll resource roads. The ministry never had that authority before. It has always had the authority, I understand, for authorizing loans and investments for expenditure on roads, but it never had the ability to actually toll them and charge the industry back. That's all we're doing here.

           J. MacPhail: These would be tolls that would be put on industry.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. It would be to industry. It wouldn't be just industry. It would be the people that would maybe service that industry. It could be a wide variety of people that would be using those industrial roads.

           J. MacPhail: There are also mechanisms for cost recovery. Did the minister suggest that the mechanisms for cost recovery were in place before?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No, there was nothing in place before for cost recovery. What we're doing is trying to put that in now. The ability to be able to expend money was there before.

           J. MacPhail: What's the anticipated amount of revenue that the government expects to raise?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: That depends on what takes place. This is enabling legislation to allow us to do these things. Do I have a project in place right now to be able to do that? No. There is one project, though, that has been in place for a long time: the Sierra-Yoyo road in northeastern B.C., where we've had to try to work agreements with a multitude of different companies in the oil and gas industry to try to recover some costs. What we're trying to do is simplify the whole process so that it's even and straight across the board and across the whole province.

           J. MacPhail: This is entitled "Cost Recovery For Roads and Other Works Used For Resource Exploration and Development." The title is the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act, but where would one find that the limitation is strictly to the energy, mineral and petroleum resources alone? Does section 13.1(2) make it clear that the ability to toll roads only applies to the energy, mineral and petroleum resources? Is that the minister's understanding of it?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: She is correct.

           J. MacPhail: Are there any roads in terms of the applicability of tolls to roads that could be of dual purpose for exploration as well as forestry — logging? Are there any roads like that in existence in British Columbia now that the minister is aware of, which could be tolled?

[1705]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there are. I spoke about the SYD road — the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road. That is one that's used by both the oil and gas industry and to a limited amount by the forest industry.

           J. MacPhail: So what consultation was there amongst either the forest community or the investment community about raising costs of doing business in this province? What was the consultation?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The consultation process about charging for that particular road took place under the last administration through the Build BC Act and a lot of different agreements with one particular forest company, because it's the only one that uses it. That happens to be Slocan Forest Products. They were already aware of it a number of years ago and have been paying a fee. What we're trying to do is streamline it, so there's a toll in place that would affect them no differently today if it were a toll than what they're under right now.

           J. MacPhail: Has there been consultation beyond the industries affected by use of the Yoyo road?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I can't contemplate any road right now that's going to be built that this section would apply to. The oil and gas industry is certainly aware that we are moving towards this type of process instead of the cumbersome process that was in place under the last administration.

           Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

           On section 17.

           J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the necessity for these changes, please?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: What we're doing here is increasing the board to three members from two. The Deputy

[ Page 3268 ]

Minister of Energy and Mines will be the chair. The commissioner will be the second member and vice-chair and someone else to be appointed at a later date.

           J. MacPhail: Under the current act, there is a section that says: "(5) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the appropriate officials under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, and not the commission, continue to be responsible for enforcing the provisions of that Act in relation to logging plans." It's my understanding that that's been repealed. Is that correct?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: We should maybe move on to that section, if we've covered the questions on section 17.

           J. MacPhail: I'm reading this incorrectly then. My apologies; it's 17 here, but it's changing section 2 of the act.

           The Chair: Shall section 17 pass?

           J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. To the minister, thank you for that guidance on those changes.

           What is the role of the minister in relationship to the Oil and Gas Commission?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm the minister responsible for the legislation.

[1710]

           J. MacPhail: Is the accountability for the Oil and Gas Commission transferred to the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No.

           J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could elaborate on that. The deputy minister is a director and is chair of the commission. That's changed. That's a new addition.

           Is it that the chair of the Oil and Gas Commission reports to the minister, and therefore the minister is ultimately to be held accountable? I'm just curious as to how that enhances the independence of the Oil and Gas Commission.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The Oil and Gas Commission is still a regulatory authority. The reason — and I think the member will probably remember the reason — for the Oil and Gas Commission being put into place was to speed up the referral process, which had bogged down terribly. In fact, it had almost stopped, stopping the ability for British Columbia to receive revenue from royalties for oil and gas.

           The process was put into place to speed up those referrals to try to get a system in place that dealt with a multitude of them in an ever more complex world.

           All we have done in this section is change to make three directors instead of two. The Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines will be one of the directors and the chair. The commissioner will be a member and the vice-chair, with a third not appointed yet.

           Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

           On section 22.

           J. MacPhail: Again, this is where my question is appropriate. This section of the amendment act repeals section 17(5) of the Oil and Gas Commission Act, which currently reads: "Despite subsections (1) and (2), the appropriate officials under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, and not the commission, continue to be responsible for enforcing the provisions of that act in relation to logging plans."

           Again, this is a pretty substantial change to the Forest Practices Code. It's another limitation on the Forest Practices Code. Perhaps the minister could explain why this is being repealed.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, this is another provision to streamline the processes to make the Oil and Gas Commission more what it was designed to be. That's a single-window agency. It transfers those responsibilities from the Ministry of Forests to the Oil and Gas Commission.

[1715]

           J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could point out where there's a transfer. I see a deletion but no transfer. Perhaps he could walk me through that.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The deletion, actually, is to allow the commission to enforce the code, whereas prior to this it was the Ministry of Forests through the Forest Practices Code that had to apply it. This is again just a streamlining effort on behalf of the ministry.

           J. MacPhail: I'm asking for the record here, and remember we're using this for future discussion. Under section 17 of the current act it says "Commission's responsibilities under various enactments," so where does it say specifically that the commission is responsible for enforcing the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act now? Other acts are listed but not that one. So where is it, please?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: They are in specified parts of the act described in the first part of the definitions of the act. I know that gets a little bit hard to understand, but they are there.

           J. MacPhail: Well, it's just a matter of public record to find out what the government has in mind for the Forest Practices Code, so I leave it up to those who will be participating in the consultation to follow the little bouncing ball of Forest Practices Code protection. Tell me. I am told that this is a substantial amount of work, so what increased resources does the Oil and Gas Commission expect to bring on board to enforce the Forest Practices Code?

[ Page 3269 ]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The existing staff at the Oil and Gas Commission will be able to administer these responsibilities within the budget they have now.

           J. MacPhail: So there's a transfer of responsibility for enforcing the Forest Practices Code prior to any consultation being completed, and there's no addition of resources? Well, it will be interesting to see how the Oil and Gas Commission pulls that one off.

           Section 22 approved.

           On section 23.

           J. MacPhail: Section 23 adds, under changing the current act, section 17.1(1), outlining a concept called general development permit. Perhaps the minister could outline what environmental considerations there will be under this new class of permit called general development permit.

[1720]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The general development permit is another move by this ministry to reduce red tape and actually streamline while maintaining high environmental standards. What can happen now, or what will happen once this is in effect, is that an oil company, for instance, that wishes — I'll use that as an example — to do a program in an area, to drill a dozen wells, for instance…. First off, they have to purchase by auction the right to do that. That process is ongoing and is the same as it used to be.

           Secondly, what they can do with that program is bring the whole program to the Oil and Gas Commission. This is where they intend to drill the wells. This is where they would intend to have the pipelines if those wells are successful — or compressor stations or whatever actually is needed to complete that kind of work. It will also facilitate coalbed methane, which involves a lot more drilling of holes in a section of land than conventional natural gas or oil drilling.

           When that comes to the commission, they can actually view that whole development plan as a plan in a whole area. That plan will also be viewed by first nations who would be involved on their traditional lands. They would be able to see the whole program that a certain company, Company X, has in mind.

           I think it moves towards trying to find out what the cumulative effects of drilling are in a certain area because you can see in greater detail the whole plan. What happens now is if that same company — I use Company X — has the right to drill and wants to drill 12 wells and put in pipelines and compressor stations or whatever is involved with that work, they would have to come and make an application for each and every one of those wells, each and every pipeline and compressor station.

           This simply streamlines it so that they can get a permit to go ahead and do that work after consultation has taken place with affected stakeholders. If it's close to a community, it's part of the Oil and Gas Commission's responsibility to communicate with them, the community people or first nations. It is a process that's really not trying to avoid anything but rather to see in the bigger picture what's happening in different areas.

           J. MacPhail: I asked earlier whether the minister was part of the Oil and Gas Commission, and he's not. I'm sure his view of things is interesting, but it's the Oil and Gas Commission that will now be given huge responsibilities for enforcing environmental standards. We've managed to exempt the Oil and Gas Commission from important requirements under the Forest Practices Code, so I'm looking for some sort of concrete legislative commitment to environmental considerations. Could the minister point to concrete legislative considerations that must be acted upon by the Oil and Gas Commission?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The Oil and Gas Commission still have to meet all the same rules and regulations that they had to in the past, with this change. That doesn't change at all. It's not added to, and it's not taken away from.

           What this does is just let you see a bigger part of the plan than just individual well-licence authorities or a licence authority to do a pipeline. It speeds the whole process up because they can actually do the consultation for that whole development plan all at once with those affected stakeholders, still maintaining high environmental standards that have been there before and will continue to be there.

           Now, I'm not suggesting that all companies will come in with this type of application. There are companies that may drill one or two wells. Obviously, they wouldn't fall under this, but companies that go in with a fair-sized drilling program — and there are some in British Columbia — will be able to have this process. I believe it will make it a lot simpler for all stakeholders. It will make it simpler for the processing of permits.

           You'll still collect the same dollars for the amount of permits that you did before. The high environmental standards will still be there. They'll have to apply them no differently than they did a year ago.

[1725]

           I don't see any real added work. In fact, this will, I believe, achieve a process of making it simpler and faster and still maintain those high environmental standards.

           J. MacPhail: Is the minister suggesting this is just a housekeeping change?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It's not a housekeeping change. It is a significant change to how we do business in the province, so it's not housekeeping. But it does streamline. It does make the Oil and Gas Commission a lot more effective. In doing so, with maintaining high environmental standards, it encourages development in the province.

[ Page 3270 ]

           J. MacPhail: I just heard a message box; I didn't hear a commitment. Yes, we have a new permit. It's not housekeeping; it's a streamlining permit.

           I would like to know — and perhaps the minister could walk me through — where it is that the Oil and Gas Commission is charged legislatively with meeting the high environmental standards under the general development permit.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: This does not change the responsibilities that the Oil and Gas Commission has to high environmental standards, to the same standards that were there prior to this government coming into office. If you're trying to infer that there are not high environmental standards, I guess they happened under your watch, not under our watch. We have said we're going to maintain high environmental standards.

           We're debating section 17. The same permit process goes. The only difference is that it can be for a larger development plan. The same processes take place. We could continue to do them each individually, as has been done in the past. It just takes more time. All it does is lengthen it out. In fact, if you speak to some of the first nations, you'll find that they would rather see cumulative programs put into place so they know what's happening on their traditional territory, rather than single — an oil company coming in on December 1 with one well program and then in January for another one, and so on and so forth.

           This simply still maintains the same environmental standards that have ever been there, that the ministry is charged with, that are laid out by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and of Sustainable Resource Management. The same regulations are there, and they are in the bill.

           J. MacPhail: I don't think the minister's read his own bill, then. He's trying to say that nothing's changed. Of course they've changed. The Oil and Gas Commission is now in charge of administering the Forest Practices Code. That wasn't the case before. There's no new staff being added to the Oil and Gas Commission. So that's a huge change — a huge change. So don't….

           Does the minister think that because we're having to work so hard in the opposition, we don't get the changes that have occurred here, that somehow if everybody just says, "Oh well, you guys did the same under your government," and then adds fast ferries at the end of it, we'll all shrink and cower and say: "Oh, okay. That's a good point"?           

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: No, of course the minister didn't say fast ferries. I'm always waiting for it. We always know on this side, the opposition, that when the government's in real deep trouble because of their own actions, they go: "Fast ferries." And they think everybody's going to shirk away and say: "Oh, whew, thank God we've got this Liberal government that's dismantling the Forest Practices Code."

           The minister hasn't gone that far yet, but what he has done is suggest that somehow things are exactly the same with this legislation as they were under the previous administration. Well, they're not.

           Here's what we've learned so far: (1) that this minister's proceeding holus-bolus with changes to the Forest Practices Code; (2) that the Oil and Gas Commission is going to be responsible for enforcing the Forest Practices Code — that's a change; (3) that the Oil and Gas Commission isn't adding any new staff to ensure compliance or enforcement with the Forest Practices Code. All I'm asking is: show me the evidence of where the environmental considerations will take place with this new general development permit. It's kind of like following the dotted line of changes under this legislation.

[1730]

           The minister stands up and says that nothing's changed. Well, yeah, a lot's changed. I can't find in here….

           That's all I'm asking. Will the minister to just walk me through, with these changes that I've just outlined, where environmental considerations will take place?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I realize that there is some change happening to the acts that we're dealing with. I think she took what I was saying a little out of context. I was talking about, actually, the section that we're debating in regard to general development permits. What I was saying was that nothing has changed with the way that the environment is affected or the way the environment is respected in the changes in this act as to what they were before.

           Section 17.1(5). I'll read it: "A term or condition specified in a general development permit must be applied to an approval, a licence, a permit or another authorization, as appropriate, subsequently issued in accordance with the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act or a specified enactment."

           J. MacPhail: I don't understand that, so perhaps the minister could draw the line from that clause to environmental standards.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The last sentence specified enactment. That could mean the Forest Practices Code. It could mean the Water Act. It could mean the Waste Management Act. It could mean the Land Act. It could mean any of those.

           What it says, again, is "in accordance with the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act or a specified enactment." It takes it through that you have to adhere to any one of those enactments.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sure glad we're having this debate, because I wouldn't have read that on the face of the language.

           What does the qualification "a specified enactment" mean? Would it be then up to those issuing the permit, which will be the Oil and Gas Commission with no

[ Page 3271 ]

added resources, to specify an act that has to apply? Is it optional?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It's defined by legislation in section 1.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry. Could the minister just read it into the record for me so that everybody — the public — can follow that one through? Section 1 of the Oil and Gas Commission…?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: "Specified enactment means any of the following provisions of the Forest Act, but only in relation to a licence to cut." Licence to cut, consent to transfer…. These are all to do with sections of every act. Cancellation for failure to observe consent, eligibility, road use permits for industrial use, logging plans…. There is a multitude of them, a number of pages.

[1735]

           Water Act: changes in or about a stream, record, suspension and cancellation of rights and licences, permits over Crown land, special wastes storage and disposal. The list goes on.

           J. MacPhail: Thank you. I found that very helpful.

           Is the Forest Practices Code listed as a specified enactment?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it is, with respect to the logging plans.

           Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

           On section 28.

           J. MacPhail: Under section 28(2), it states that this allows, I think…. My interpretation of this is that it allows for the exemption of a person from the application of a regulation under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Could the minister elaborate on the intent of this change, in what circumstances such an exemption would occur and the reasoning behind giving such an exemption?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't know whether I'm confused or we're just confused here with sections. I believe we're dealing with section 28. Is that correct?

           The Chair: Shall section 28 pass? Leader of the Opposition on section 29?

           J. MacPhail: No, no. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't get an answer to my question.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to evade the question.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll restate my question, if I may.

           The Chair: Proceed.

           J. MacPhail: Section 28 of the amendment act adds subsection (2) to section 36 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. I'll read it into the record. It states: "A regulation made under this section may provide that commission employees designated by the commission may, in writing, exempt a person from the application of all or part of the regulation, in relation to a particular geophysical exploration project and subject to specified conditions."

           Does the minister have the section?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: This addition will allow some changes in how geophysical programs can take place. I'm going to use an example I have of the university that wanted to do a program along a roadway. There are certain rules and regulations that have to be abided by and geophysical permits.

           They wanted to use a thumper, a vehicle-mounted percussion device, and what happens is that under the act, if they have to live up to the act, it has to be surveyed and there have to be metal pins driven in — eight per kilometre. What this does is allow the commission, the person that's authorizing the permit, to not have to apply those kinds of stringent rules, so we can actually get the work done without having to put those pins in place.

[1740]

           That could also happen across a farmer's field. There's an awful lot of seismic work that takes place across private land in farmers' fields where they would have to drive these pins in. It's not necessary, and so it would be an ability to be able to not force the geophysical company to do that.

           J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain what consultation was done around this, whether the concept of such an exemption has been explored in any public way?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually not. This was mostly within the ministry, because the ministry and the Oil and Gas Commission experienced these kind of difficulties and found this would be a way to alleviate those difficulties.

           Section 28 approved.

           Sections 29 to 33 inclusive approved.

           On section 34.

           J. MacPhail: Section 34 changes section 90 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The requirement for an application for a test hole was to be accompanied by a statement showing the maximum number of test holes proposed, the areas where the test holes are to be drilled, the approximate depth of the test holes. That's removed. So I'm just curious: is this to be read in conjunction with section 28? Is it different circumstances? Do we have the ability now to give an ex-

[ Page 3272 ]

emption on something that isn't even required any longer?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, what happens here is that it was in legislation. We removed it, but we will have it in regulation so that if, for instance, a company wants to go to over 600 metres by a few metres, they're not withheld from doing that. We can do it by regulation.

           J. MacPhail: So section 90 is repealed, but regulations will be established? Where would one find those regulations now?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: The ministry will create them once this is enforced, and we'll get you a copy of them.

           J. MacPhail: I'm just curious, because we've been in debate around several bills now, where things are removed from legislation and put into regulation. What is the process then for deregulation in this province? Does the minister have a tally — like he gets to put this in regulation, and there's several regulations moved elsewhere? I'll be debating the Minister of State for Deregulation's legislation in a few moments, and I'm just curious as to the view on when is a regulation…. Maybe this could be a good test: when a regulation is good news and when a regulation elsewhere is bad news.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: No, there's no special movement of any of this. This is a process actually to, again, make it easier for the commission to be able to do the work without having to have the legislative change. The member is quite well aware that if it's in legislation, that's the law. That's what has to happen. If it's in regulation, if they want to go three to five metres deeper than 600, it's not the end of the world. But it would be if you had to come back and change the legislation to allow that to happen at a site for whatever reason that we don't know or even the company doesn't know before they do the drilling.

           This is just a process to actually still have the authority to limit it but under regulation instead of in legislation.

           J. MacPhail: Well, all it was, was the requirement for a statement to be accompanied by an application, but now there will be regulations. I assume the government will make sure the company complies with regulation. I know this government has a very strongly held view about only putting in place regulations that are important. I assumed that. How will plans be tracked under the new regulation?

[1745]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not exactly sure what that question was. If the member wishes to restate it, I'll listen a little more carefully. Again, I'm going to say that this will still be in regulation. It just allows greater flexibility for the Oil and Gas Commission to do its job in British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: What I assumed — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that all section 90 does is say that a statement or a plan has to accompany an application, and that statement, for lack of a better term, is the plan. How will we track the plans for test hole authorization? Or will there not be any tracking?

           Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there will be a plan. A company that goes out to do any kind of drilling must come in and obtain a permit, must get the authority from the Oil and Gas Commission to be able to go out and do that kind of work. Those holes will be tracked. There will be the ability for the commission to actually work a little bit better with industry. Instead of having it in legislation, we'll now have it in regulations. It will still be there, but we'll be able to change it if necessary if that arises.

           There will be a plan. People don't just go out and drill holes all over the place without first coming and getting a permit. That's what the Oil and Gas Commission was designed to do. That's how that process, in a very simplistic way…. Let me tell you, it is difficult, and it takes a lot of work. There are people hired by oil companies — land agents, lawyers; you name it — to go in and get the right paperwork put together in an application to do any kind of work on the land base. They can't just go out there and willy-nilly do anything. That's never been the case, and it's not the case now.

           Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

           On section 37.

           J. MacPhail: Section 37 adds a subsection to section 133 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. This addition allows the minister or the commissioner to exempt a person from all or part of the regulation. I'm wondering whether the minister could elaborate on the intentions of this exemption and in what circumstances it would occur.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: In general regulations, subsection 8(3) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act…. Sorry, I'll read this again. Subsection 8(3) of the petroleum and natural gas general regulation requires the submission of a report after every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. For some schemes, a different report frequency may be appropriate or desirable.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I didn't hear the last sentence the minister read into the record.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. For some schemes, a different reporting frequency may be appropriate or desirable.

           J. MacPhail: What would those schemes be?

[ Page 3273 ]

           Hon. R. Neufeld: It gets a bit technical. Enhanced oil recovery would be something different. Flooding would be different — flooding a field with water to get the oil to come up and those kinds of things.

           Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

           Bill 36, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

           Hon. M. de Jong: Now.

           Mr. Speaker: With leave?

           Hon. M. de Jong: With leave.

           Leave granted.

           Bill 36, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. M. de Jong: Noting the hour, I move the House do now adjourn.

           Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175