Hansard -- Monday, April 19, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 23, No. 7 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10129

Tributes		10130
	Peter Hulbert
	Hon. C. Clark

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10130
	Coal Act (Bill 28)
	Hon. P. Bell
	Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10131
	Role of volunteers
	P. Wong
	Perfect 10 natural energy bars
	V. Roddick
	Coalbed methane extraction on Vancouver Island
	M. Hunter

Oral Questions		10132
	Terms of B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. Kwan
	B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail and first nations consultation
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. K. Falcon

Point of Privilege		10134
	J. MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion		10135
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents		10136
	Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2003
	Follow-up of Performance Reports, auditor general report No. 1, 2004-05

Committee of the Whole House		10136
	Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. B. Barisoff

Reporting of Bills		10141
	Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

Third Reading of Bills		10141
	Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13)

Committee of the Whole House		10141
	Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)
	Hon. B. Barisoff

Reporting of Bills		10143
	Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills		10143
	Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16)

Committee of Supply		10143
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests
	M. Hunter
	Hon. M. de Jong
	G. Trumper
	P. Sahota
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	D. Hayer
	B. Belsey
	Hon. R. Harris
	J. MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)		10168

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10168
	Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)
	R. Stewart
	Hon. T. Christensen
	J. Kwan
	K. Manhas
	J. Bray
	L. Stephens
	R. Lee

Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I'd like to welcome everyone back. Hope you all had a nice break.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah. This is the first time this occasion is being recognized across Canada. It's an opportunity to remember the more than six million victims of the Holocaust of 1933-45 and to reflect on the enduring lessons the tragedy of the Holocaust holds for each of us.

There are no words to describe the extent of the evil that claimed six million lives: six million children and parents, six million brothers and sisters, six million aunts and uncles — artisans, shopkeepers — six million people with six million stories to tell. For the sake of the victims and the survivors, all of us have a duty to ensure that the evil that sparked the Holocaust finds no place in the world.

Today we are honoured to be joined by 40 survivors: Rita Akselrod, a Holocaust survivor; Lillian Boraks-Nemetz, a Holocaust survivor; Alex Buckman, a Holocaust survivor; Marion Cassirer, a Holocaust survivor; Sophie Cymbalista, a Holocaust survivor; Mark Elster, a Holocaust survivor; Shoshana Fidelman, a Holocaust survivor; Myer Grinshpan, a Holocaust survivor; Esther Golgher, a Holocaust survivor; Vladimir Hopner, a Holocaust survivor; Dr. Robert Krell, a Holocaust survivor; David Shaffer, a Holocaust survivor; Side Shaffer, a Holocaust survivor; Bente Nathan-Thomsen, a Holocaust survivor; Leo Vogel, a Holocaust survivor; Inge Manes, a Holocaust survivor; Saul Cohn, a Holocaust survivor; Lola Apfelbaum, a Holocaust survivor; Frances Hoyd, a Holocaust survivor; Issy Fraeme, a Holocaust survivor; Rosa Ferera, a Holocaust survivor; Florentina Tamir, a Holocaust survivor; Esther Basat, a Holocaust survivor; Miriam Davowicz, a Holocaust survivor; Iakov Sitchine, a Holocaust survivor; Elizabeth Stern, a Holocaust survivor; George Wertman, a Holocaust survivor; Frieda Wertman, a Holocaust survivor; Hilda Everal, a Holocaust survivor; David Reitman, a Holocaust survivor; Betty Reitman, a Holocaust survivor; Karl Levinson, a Holocaust survivor; Judith Levinson, a Holocaust survivor; Goldie Miller, a Holocaust survivor; Avrum Miller, a Holocaust survivor; Jack Fraeme, a Holocaust survivor; Margaret Fraeme, a Holocaust survivor; Maurice Lipkowitz, a Holocaust survivor; and Nisson Goldman, a Holocaust survivor.

We grieve for the suffering that each of these survivors has endured, for the suffering that their families have had to endure. We thank them all for honouring us with their presence here in this Legislature today.

Today at a ceremony at noon, it was pointed out that no child deserves to be suspended between life and death. Many of us are fortunate that we never had to go through that experience. Each of these survivors did. Each of these families did. It is our work here to do justice to the legacy that each of them places before us. I ask our House to make each and every one of these exceptional individuals welcome and to let them know that we will never forget.

W. Cobb: Mr. Speaker, this is not an introduction but best wishes and a happy birthday to a very old colleague from Burquitlam. He was born in 1946, and I must say that he is far too old to be sporting a ponytail.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know that members are very concerned about an event that's taking place in Vancouver tonight. The event will be exceptional in British Columbia sports history when, once again, that great British Columbia hockey player Brendan Morrison scores not once but many times as we defeat the Calgary Flames. I know that many members are nervous, as are many of the Canucks' fans, as we look to that very critical seventh game tonight.

But I want to have everyone rest easy. This afternoon I had the opportunity to meet with a number of students in grade 5 from Sir James Douglas School. One of those students is a true hockey fan, and her name is Maddie Baldrey. I asked her what was going to happen in the game tonight. She says not to worry. It's going to be 5-0 Canucks. I want to say thank you, Maddie, for making us feel so comfortable. That's great.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined today by two very exceptional women in the gallery. One is Rheta Steer, and the other is Catherine Reid — and my daughter, Olivia Reid-Friesen, who is a frequent visitor to this Legislature. I'm honoured to offer my son on his first visit to this place, Will Nicholas Reid-Friesen. To the House: please make them all welcome.

J. Bray: I'd like to join with the Premier to welcome a class of grade 5 students from the exceptional school of Sir James Douglas, well known for their hockey prognostications as well. The 32 grade 5 students are joined by five adults, who are taking their time to join the kids today, and by their teacher Mr. Carson. I'd ask the House to please make these students very welcome.

R. Nijjar: It may have taken three years, but after three years I can finally stand up and say that I have students from a school to introduce in the House. I believe that makes the score Surrey-Tynehead 56, Vancouver-Kingsway 1. I am very proud of the students from Windermere high school. All of the grade 11 students are coming here to the Legislature today throughout the day, and some are in the House right now.

Windermere is one of the most community-oriented schools. In fact, the students were featured on

B1 of the Vancouver Sun for having the highest participation in the Sun Run for the second year in a row. Not only that, but in other things like food drives and helping in charity organizations, they are one of the most participatory schools in all of Vancouver.

I'm very proud of them, and I'm proud to have them here at the Legislature. Would everyone please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House I'm pleased to be joined by a couple of special guests. The first is my very hard-working constituency assistant from Surrey-Cloverdale. Susan Gotfried is joining us here today. I'm pleased she could make a day over here.

She is also joined by a young student named Leslie Small. Leslie is from Lord Tweedsmuir high school in my riding. Leslie has just completed a three-week co-op work program where she got stationed, fortunately — or perhaps it's her misfortune; I'm not sure which — in my office. We've enjoyed her tremendously. She's been a great worker and learned a lot about the process of constituency politics. I'd ask the House to please join me in making them both welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to take a moment to mark the passing of Peter Hulbert, who was a lifelong resident of Port Moody in my constituency and a lifelong volunteer on behalf of many issues that are so important to people. He was a staff photographer for the Vancouver Province for decades. After he retired, he devoted so much time to protecting our environment and to making sure that our streams were healthy and filled with fish. He worked in our community. He worked in Africa supporting young children.

He will be deeply, deeply missed by everyone in our community, but we will remember him as an example of how one person can make such a tremendous difference. I'd ask that you, Mr. Speaker, send condolences to his wife, Ann Hulbert, and his family on our behalf.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Tonight in Victoria is the mine health and safety awards dinner. I think everyone knows that the safest heavy industry in British Columbia is the mining industry. Some of those people that will be receiving awards are with us today: Rob Pritchard and Clayton Behnke. Along with them are their spouses Mya Pritchard and Stephanie Willms. Will the House please make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce Mr. Bill Denault, my riding president, who is from North Vancouver–Seymour, over here also for the mining awards dinner.

Hon. P. Bell presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Coal Act.

Hon. P. Bell: I am pleased to introduce Bill 28, Coal Act. The Coal Act is the provincial statute under which the government issues coal licences and leases for the exploration and production of Crown-owned coal.

The Coal Act is an older statute that was last rewritten in 1979 and has not had any major updates in the past 20 years. The amendments that are introduced in this bill are made to streamline the administration of coal tenures for both government and industry. The changes will reduce regulation and create a modern, simplified system for acquiring and holding Crown coal rights. The new act will see the elimination of 49 regulations, representing a 34 percent reduction in red tape.

A more efficient and streamlined regulatory environment will support the coal industry in B.C. Policy changes introduced by these amendments include the removal of the requirement for a free miner's certificate, the removal of the requirement for storage of core samples, incorporation of wording to reflect the two-zone land use system for mining, and provisions of flexibility in size and shapes of licences.

The changes introduced in this bill support the Ministry of Energy and Mines policy objectives of promoting investment in mining in British Columbia. Government has consulted the coal industry prior to amending the act, and industry told us that they welcomed the reduced regulatory requirements and costs. Government is committed to building a strong economy through the provision of certainty for industry. I look forward to passing this legislation and demonstrating our government's firm commitment to continued streamlining of regulations and building a strong, prosperous economy for all British Columbians.

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

Bill 28 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.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Passenger Transportation Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, Passenger Transportation Act, which will replace the Motor Carrier Act.

The Motor Carrier Act has not been substantially revised since its introduction in 1939. The commercial transportation industry supports fundamental changes to the Motor Carrier Act, and we are responding to their needs. In consultation with commercial carriers and under the leadership of our Premier, we developed the new Passenger Transportation Act. This legislation places a priority on safety. This act will replace the Motor Carrier Act and allow the commercial transportation industry to compete and respond to market forces and give operators the flexibility to meet the needs of customers while protecting and enhancing transportation service levels.

The benefits of this bill are many. It will ensure continued public safety. It will allow the commercial transportation industry to be more innovative to meet the needs of their customers. It will encourage tourism and spur economic growth, and it promotes competition by allowing carriers to quickly respond to changing market conditions. Finally, it provides an enhanced ability to deal with illegal operators.

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

Bill 30 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.

P. Wong: This is the beginning of National Volunteer Week in Canada. Volunteers form the backbone of our society at large. Last summer, after the devastating forest fires, volunteers worked hard to provide relief for the fire victims. Whether it was to raise funds for recovery efforts or to ensure that victims had food and clothing, volunteers helped so many get through that difficult time.

Now more than ever, people are extremely busy. Many families have both parents working, and yet they still make time to volunteer in organizations that truly could not survive without them. People volunteer as field workers in search and rescue, soccer coaches, people who provide care to animals at the SPCA, people who spend time with the elderly, parents who supervise on school field trips. The list is endless.

In a country of slightly more than 30 million, it is estimated that we have 6.5 million volunteers. That's about 22 percent of our population. Canada has a global reputation for being a friendly and helpful nation, and I believe that the numbers regarding volunteers speak for themselves.

National Volunteer Week, April 18 to 24, is a time to celebrate the importance of volunteers in society and to recognize their efforts in building and maintaining our communities. I urge people across our province to get out, participate and volunteer in their community and feel the warmth of giving to one another from our hearts and through our actions. Just imagine what good could be done in our communities if everyone across the province volunteered just two hours a week.

V. Roddick: Perfect 10. I rise today to tell you about a great new business in Delta South. Leed Products produces Perfect 10, a superb energy bar composed of ten natural ingredients, including locally grown Delta cranberries. The bars are gluten- and dairy-free. They come in five flavours, with chocolate on the way, and they are simply delicious. The Perfect 10 started out as a homemade snack made in the kitchen of Les Paukov, an inventor and designer originally from Slovakia and now one of the three partners of Leed Products.

Many of you will have read the story in the Vancouver Sun last year of how Mr. Paukov's friends urged him to go public and mass-produce the bar for everyone to enjoy. Well, he did. Mr. Paukov got together with two partners, Tom Irving and Ed Tycholaz. Mr. Paukov had the recipe; the others the expertise in finance, marketing and production. Together they launched Perfect 10.

The next chapter had a Stanford and NASA engineer formerly from Vancouver discovering Perfect 10 bars at Mountain Equipment Co-op while visiting Vancouver and buying them for a NASA expedition in California. He e-mailed the company, wanting more. Leed Products donated the bars to NASA, and the rest, as we say, is history.

But wait; there's more. Perfect 10s were supplied to the athletes at the 2004 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island. Leeds is branching out into the eastern markets and hopes to be a household name across the country.

In today's hectic world, eating properly can be extremely erratic. Perfect 10 is healthy, it's tasty, and it's made right here in B.C. This is a local success story we can all celebrate, because we still have to eat to live — 2010, here they come. It's a perfect 10.

M. Hunter: Tough act to follow, but I'll try. Members from the Thompson-Okanagan region might think that I'm standing to boast about the magnificent victory of the Nanaimo Clippers in the B.C. Hockey League

Championship, but I'll refrain from doing that because I have another serious matter that I want to talk about.

Last week an important and encouraging announcement was made by Snuneymuxw Chief John Wesley on behalf of a number of aboriginal groups from southwestern British Columbia. The Naut'sa mawt tribal council and the Yiasulth Management Corporation outlined a new association agreement with Akita Drilling Ltd. of Alberta to prepare for opportunities for the extraction of coalbed methane on Vancouver Island.

This is great news from a number of perspectives. First, it shows that individual aboriginal communities throughout the southwest can work together. Ten Coast Salish first nations plus some of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth bands and the United Native Nations are involved in this deal. Second, it shows that our aboriginal communities are pursuing economic development opportunities on their own. The fact that they see opportunity in coalbed methane is great news indeed. Third, the aboriginal partners have explicitly recognized the oil and gas drilling industry's environmental and safety records. Perhaps the leader of the NDP should follow the example set by the first nations and do her homework about oil and gas drilling as well.

Ernie Hardy, co-chair of the Yiasulth Management Corporation, said about this initiative: "We see the potential to be involved as workers, as partners and as investors. We welcome the opportunity to participate in all those ways." I want to say that I share the vision of these aboriginal leaders and of Akita Drilling as they enter this joint venture. I am pleased to bring it to the attention of the House and know that every member will join with me in wishing the partners success and profit.

J. MacPhail: The Premier and the minister sold the privatization of B.C. Rail as a 90-year, $1 billion deal where the province retained ownership of the railbed. Now we know it's a 990-year deal worth $750 million that allows the province to sell the railbed and accompanying land to CN for a buck. The Premier and the Minister of Transportation were explicit in claiming the original deal was for 60 years with one 30-year renewal clause — one renewal clause for 30 years, not 15 renewal clauses lasting for another 930 years. Can the Premier tell British Columbians why his government hid these details from the public when the deal to sell B.C. Rail was announced last year?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really, that the members opposite and Carole James don't understand the distinction between a lease term and options to renew, but I'm happy to explain it for her. If they check their own NDP office lease, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a five-year lease. I also wouldn't be surprised if it had a couple of options to renew for additional five-year terms. But I want the member to know that that doesn't mean they signed a 15-year lease. They actually signed a five-year lease with options to renew.

That's just what we've done with the CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership. At the 60-year intervals, the government of the day will have a very clear choice. They can decide to continue with the arrangement. They may decide they want to bring in another railway operator, of which they would have that option, or — and I hope this isn't the case — they could even, as government, get back into the railway business. At the end of the day, the issue really comes down to this. What we're not hearing from the Leader….

J. MacPhail: When the Premier stood up and announced this deal, he said it was a 90-year deal. That's what he said. He said that 60 years plus an extension made a 90-year deal. The government can't have it both ways, saying that now these extensions mean nothing. Despite the rhetoric, there's a simple explanation for the government's dishonesty. They were worried about the political backlash of a broken promise and chose to hide the real deal from public scrutiny.

On March 30, I asked the Premier to assure British Columbians that there were no — no — renegotiation clauses extending the lease or sale of B.C. Rail beyond the original 90-year agreement. I asked that question specifically. The Minister of Transportation said I was spreading false misinformation. Now we know that even Capt. Jean-Luc Picard and the Starship Enterprise will be gone by the time this deal is up in the year 2995. Can the Premier explain…?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: Their disregard with the concern around this matter is shocking.

Can the Premier explain, when asked that question, why his government deliberately kept the B.C. Rail renegotiation clauses a secret — when he was asked point-blank on March 30 if those renegotiation clauses existed? Point blank, and you said I was spreading misinformation.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again I'll say it to the member opposite: you don't understand the distinction in funda-

mental business principles between a lease term and renewal options. What we really need to know is something that I think is even more significant.

What we need to know is that this member and Carole James want to keep the government in the operation of a railway. The question I have for them is: where are they going to find the billions of dollars to be investing in railway? Where are they going to find the $3.5 billion for track maintenance and rehabilitation over the 90-year term of this lease? Where are they going to find the $135 million for the northern development initiative? Where are they going to find the money to expand Prince George Airport or to create containerization at Prince Rupert? The only place they're going to find it is on the backs of the taxpayers with their $3 billion tax increase they want to put through.

J. MacPhail: In order to cover up their withholding of information, this minister comes up with new figures just out of the blue. The B.C. Liberals had a choice. They could have been honest. They could have been straightforward about this broken promise and hoped the public would understand based on the spin that the minister's now giving, or they could try the truth, or they could try to spin the deal. They chose to hide the truth. Now, not surprisingly, there's a huge credibility gap.

The minister is trying to draw a comparison to a standard commercial lease for office space that has extension provisions. Fair enough. That's fair enough. But if those extensions were negotiated, there would be a cost to the tenant. That's the way business is done. Under this privatization there's absolutely no additional cost to CN.

I remind the House that CN gave $122,000. They get 990 years for a billion bucks — nice investment. Can the Premier point us toward another lease anywhere, anywhere in this province, that has extension provisions that extend centuries into the future with absolutely no additional cost to the tenant beyond the normal cost of doing business? It's 990 years for a billion bucks. Is that what he says is doing good business in this province?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, when you hear questions like that, suddenly you get clarity. It's like a moment of clarity where I'm now understanding how it is they entered into a fast ferries project that blew half a billion dollars. It's a moment of clarity where I realize how they could have shovelled $400 million into a money-losing pulp mill. It's a moment of clarity where I realize when they talked about three — count them, three — aluminum smelters, there was no hope of that ever happening. Well, it's because they can't understand the basic premise of a lease agreement. If you cannot understand that, I can see why we get into so much trouble.

What I would say to this member is that she needs to understand this. We've been very clear that all of that information, all of the information associated with this that is not commercially sensitive, will be released upon the completion of the competition tribunal review. Upon the completion of that review all the information that's not commercially sensitive, including this lease agreement, will be fully, completely disclosed to all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: You know, when this deal was announced by the Premier, he said he was so proud of it that he would actually campaign against it on the next election. Let's put the facts forward. Here's what we know today. Since that announcement, we've had police raids on the Legislature involving the sale. We've had angry bidders withdrawing. Now we have a deal that nobody has any faith in at all. Now we find out that not only does the deal last for 990 years and the government can potentially sell billions of dollars of real estate to CN for a buck, but that the taxpayers of this province are on the hook for some of the 7 percent rate reduction promised to the shippers in the deal.

Can the Premier tell us how much of the 7 percent taxpayers will be paying and how many years they will have to pay? Is it for one year, five years or 990 years? How much will taxpayers have to subsidize this key Liberal campaign donor?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is just fascinating, because it gives some great insight. Now, the members…

Hon. K. Falcon: …of the opposition are concerned because there's a clause in there that will allow the government, for the sum of a dollar, to force ownership of certain lands back on to the proponent that's operating the railway. They ask the question why and think that's a bad deal. Why don't they actually listen to the answer? Why don't they listen to the answer for a moment? The reason we did that and we insisted on that clause….

Hon. K. Falcon: If you tried listening, you would actually hear the answers, and it might be helpful.

The reason we did that is because we wanted to ensure that if there was a case where track in which they were operating had, for example, significant environmental remediation costs associated with it, we had the right to make sure that the operator could not discontinue that section of the track and turn it over to a taxpayer obligation. She wants us to not have that, and she would rather have the taxpayers be stuck with that.

That's exactly why this member, Carole James and the NDP have never got it. They never will get it…

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

J. Kwan: If this government tells the truth, the answer might be worth listening to. It's the same story over and over and over again. Hide the truth, and when it comes out, insist that it's a good deal. It's not good news when a government hides the truth. The scandal is no longer about a particular clause in this contract. It's about a government that has deliberately and consistently kept the public in the dark, a government that has perpetrated a political swindle on the people of British Columbia.

We asked the Premier this question three weeks ago, and he didn't answer the question. Instead, the minister ducked the question on his behalf. Now we know what he was hiding.

I'll ask the question again. Will the Premier stand up today and be open and accountable and put the full details of the B.C. Rail deal forward for full public scrutiny and for full public debate, and will he do it today?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's difficult to talk when you keep yelling and interrupting. I'll remind those members that what we've said and what we've always said is all of the information that is not commercially sensitive — I'm sure the member opposite does not want us releasing lists of employees and how much employees earn — including the lease agreement, will be released upon completion of the competition board review.

The real issue here is this. Carole James and the NDP have to answer this question. Since they're so fascinated in having government continue to run this, even though taxpayers have put over a billion dollars in losses into this railway over the last 15 years, I need to hear from them where they're going to find the billions of dollars to invest in the railway over the next 90 years, where they're going to find the $3.5 billion to invest in the track upgrades and rehabilitation, where they're going to find the dollars to invest in new centre-beam cars.

Hon. K. Falcon: …because they haven't got the money. Our priority is health care and education, and that's why we're bringing in…

P. Nettleton: A letter dated March 2, 2004, from Tribal Chief Harry Pierre of Carrier-Sekani tribal council, directed to the federal competition bureau, reads in part:

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will the minister now recognize that these concerns are obstacles that need to be resolved between the B.C. government and the Carrier-Sekani tribal council to ensure that their rights are not permanently infringed upon if this hasty, secretive and ill-conceived deal is finalized? In light of this further impediment to the sale of B.C. Rail, can the minister tell the members in the Carrier-Sekani tribal council what actions he plans to take?

Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely. I can confirm that we have been very clear that there's absolutely no threat whatsoever to the rights and title. We've been very clear with them from the first.

One of the things that is also very exciting is that under this deal, as you know, we're creating a first nations benefits trust made up of $15 million. Those 25 first nations will each have representation on the board of that trust, and they will be able to use that for creating economic opportunity, creating cultural awareness and creating real good news for the first nation folks of the province.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege at a future date.

J. MacPhail: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to debate an issue of definite and urgent public importance, specifically that this government's failure to provide the public with the true facts about the B.C. Rail deal has led to a crisis in public confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, as suggested in practice recommendation No. 8, I have provided you with advance notice of my intention to bring this motion forward at this time.

Until this weekend, no one but the government and perhaps CN knew some of the important details about the B.C. Rail deal, which have alarmed many in the public. Indeed, this government stated unequivocally in this Legislature that the deal was for 60 years with a 30-year option to extend and renew and for a specific amount of money. Now we have learned that the successful bidder can also have sole use of the B.C. Rail lines for 990 years. There is no information from government on what, if any, additional benefits might flow to future generations should CN exercise that 900-year option. Also…

J. MacPhail: …this government campaigned on not selling B.C. Rail, and yet this weekend we learned that there is clearly language in the agreement that would see government selling title to the railway and railbed. Clearly, we have a matter that questions public confidence in this government. This matter is urgent. The government, as we speak, is pursuing a speedy closing of this agreement.

Given the misinformation made available at the time of the debate in this Legislature on the British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, a point and questions that were raised by the opposition at the time, it is clearly urgent that this matter be debated now, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to acknowledge the urgent nature of this matter. Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you adjourn this House until your ruling on this matter has been heard.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm somewhat interested by the comments of the member opposite. First of all, there's just a fundamental error of facts in her statement, which I think any clear reading of question period Hansard today would indicate. The fact of the matter is that CN does not have a 990-or-whatever-it-was-year lease that she mentioned. In fact, the option to renew is an option of government.

There will be at some point, some time from now, a government that can opt, as the minister said, to renew, to not renew, to find someone else to operate the railway for them or to operate it themselves. So first of all, there's a fundamental error of facts, again, with the comment by the member in the Legislature.

Second of all, she alleges that that, therefore, is new information, and I think there have been numerous previous rulings in this House as well as in other Houses about the relevancy and the impact of new information on the urgency of debate. It's not a matter, and I'd refer the member to page 370 of the sixteenth edition of Erskine May…. Even if there were new information, which I allege there isn't, that is not a matter for urgency. I would refer the Speaker and the member opposite to that.

The question is the urgency of the debate, in fact, and there have been previous debates in this House about this issue. There was last fall with the passage of legislation. There was also, I might add, and there continues to be a standing opportunity for the members opposite to raise matters and motions that they put before the House on Monday mornings in private members' time, something that was not available to the opposition in the ten years I was in opposition.

It's also a standing provision in this House by agreement with the opposition members that they can choose the time for that debate. They could have done it this morning. They could do it next Monday, if they wish. There are other opportunities for debate. It's not me that doesn't want to have the debate. If that member had wanted to have the debate, she could have had the debate. She could have had it this morning. She can have it next Monday, if she wants. It's up to her to get her act together and to submit her information.

Hon. G. Collins: Again, she doesn't understand it, because the issue is a debate. It's a debate put forward by a motion of the member of the opposition. It becomes the member of the opposition's debate.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order, please. Hon. members, we heard one side of the issue. Let's have the courtesy of listening to the other side.

Hon. G. Collins: The member is just incorrect. The fact of the matter is she's just put before the House a motion that she would like to move in the event that you rule in her favour. So for her argument to be that it's not an opposition motion is simply factually incorrect, and if she'd read her own motion, which she just handed to the Table, she'd know that.

Hon. G. Collins: The fact of the matter is that the member put forward a motion which would be moved in this House, and it would be up for debate. There are other opportunities for her to do that. The estimates for the Ministry of Transportation will be up shortly. As well, there will be legislation coming before the House. When the B.C. Rail issue comes for final determination, there will be opportunities for debate at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair thanks both members for their comments. We will take them under advisement and bring back a ruling on the subject, probably later today.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the annual report of the office of the police complaint commissioner, 2003, and the auditor general's 2004-05 report No. 1, Follow-up of Performance Reports.

Hon. G. Collins: In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004. In Committee A, there's continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Has Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, been proclaimed?

Hon. B. Barisoff: This act was actually intended to be done in phases, and this is just the progression of the phases that we're going through.

J. MacPhail: Phases — that's an interesting way. It's typical of this government. We're doing it in phases, but they don't pass any of the phases. It's not a phase when you do everything at the one time. They haven't passed the original act. The government hasn't passed the original act, and now they're bringing in "the next phase." That's called doing it all at the same time.

As we mentioned during second reading, the National Round Table on the Environment says that there are some 30,000 brownfield sites in Canada, and the ministry itself says that there are some 7,000 right here in British Columbia. It's been well publicized in independent reports done for industry and for the government that the biggest obstacle to cleaning up these sites — and of course, that would also be the point raised by the member for Chilliwack-Kent and the member for Nelson-Creston in second reading — is the issue of joint and several liability.

Of course, that's exactly what we're discussing under the sale of B.C. Rail to CN too. The government's saying: "Oh, we're gonna force CN to take land for a buck, because if it's contaminated, then they'll have to clean it up. We're going to give them billions of dollars of land, because if it's contaminated, then they'll have to clean it up." Why not just make a law or enforce the law that was on the books that the owner had to clean it up regardless?

This legislation is the beginning down a slippery slope where this government is going to take away joint and several liability for land cleanup. In fact, that was the point the member for Nelson-Creston made — that we have to take that step. That was the point the member for Chilliwack-Kent made.

Can the minister tell this House and, in particular, tell the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Chilliwack-Kent where in this bill the issue of liability for the cleanup of contaminated sites is addressed? That was the point they were making that needed to be changed.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The liability issue is a very serious issue, and we are dealing with it in a slow-progression manner to make sure we deal with that liability issue. That will come forward as we move through these phases.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but that was why I asked whether the original bill, Bill 57, had been passed. It hasn't, so there are zero phases so far. This particular legislation — the one we're dealing with now, Bill 13 — doesn't address the concerns the member for Chilliwack-Kent and the member for Nelson-Creston raised around joint and several liability.

What is the purpose of this legislation in terms of actually making change? And why can't the minister just…? Maybe the minister could stand up, then, and tell us: what's the phase that deals with joint and several liability? And what are the government's intentions, given that his own government has put this issue

on the table with the sale of B.C. Rail and giving the land to CN for a dollar? His own government has raised this issue about joint and several liability in terms of the sale of that land. It's the only explanation that could possibly justify a $1 giveaway of all those B.C. Rail lands to CN. So what are the government's intentions?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We needed to develop and consult on the contaminated sites regs and codes on the waste discharge regulation, and once we've got those in, then in the next month or so we'll bring it all into effect.

J. MacPhail: Let me read from the news release of this minister, dated March 10, 2004. It's entitled Redevelopment of Contaminated Sites Accelerated. On page 2 it says: "Amendments addressing contaminated site liability, dispute resolution, appeals and cost-benefit analysis will be brought forward in the third phase of changes planned for 2006."

Given that the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Chilliwack-Kent said this was the issue — joint and several liability — the government is saying the next phase isn't until 2006.

Perhaps the minister could just explain for the record how the law is applied on matters of contaminated site liability, dispute resolution, appeals and cost-benefit analysis in the current form — under the current law.

P. Wong: In the House today I'm pleased to introduce a group of 26 volunteers from the Little Mountain Neighbourhood gathering club. They offer much of their valuable time and money in helping the needy families, seniors and parents in the riding of Vancouver-Kensington. This group is led by Irene Lui and Ellen Li. Members include Bill Yuen, Julie Chen, Jackson Chan, Annie Wong, Lai-Mui Lau, Gloria Sem, Chunk-Tak Lam, Yu-King Lan, Chiu Kui-Woom, Chiu Ho Wai-Kok, Kati Kong, Wai-Ming Kong, Norman Kong, Kwai-Hung Cheung, Lisa Chan, Siu-Wan Lau, Chung-Kan Pang, Helen Chiu, Henriette Lau, Yuke-San Wong, Ying-May Miu, Dow-Gim Miu, Ying-Mei Guo, Jean Yiu, Jayne Feng and Malik Feng. Will the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Where we are right now with liability…. We still are with joint and several, and all responsible parties bear some of the responsibility for cleanup.

The member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Chilliwack-Kent, in second reading, said that's the problem. Well, what's the problem? Would the minister stand and tell me what's wrong with joint and several liability for cleanup? Its own government is saying they have to do a big giveaway of a buck for all the lands, the B.C. Rail lands, to CN in case the lands are contaminated, and they're going to force CN to own those lands so that they have to clean up. Well, if there's no joint and several liability — if this government is intending to change that — what are they going to change it to? And should they not now come clean on their intentions so we can judge what this government's intention is around the land giveaway to CN for B.C. Rail? It was this government that brought up that issue. It was these members, these Liberal backbench members, that said the joint and several liability application to contaminated sites is the problem, and this minister says he's going to change it. Come clean.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We actually may keep the joint and several. It might be the okay way to do it. Right now we are consulting with all the parties. In some areas, some do it and some don't. We're in that process of consulting.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Ministry staff is actually doing the consulting with industry, environmental consultants, lenders, owners, municipalities.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister then saying nothing will change? Let me ask the minister this question. From the law that existed prior to his becoming government around liability for contaminated sites…. Has that changed at all since his government came into power?

J. MacPhail: Then right now the law is very strong, given that the former government had a huge commitment to that. As I understand it, a contaminated site cannot be sold and the seller abandon his or her responsibility for cleanup. That is joint and several liability. A sale doesn't negate or do away with the obligation to clean up the contaminated site. Have I got a basic understanding of the law?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The owner, by selling the property, doesn't negate his liability in the property.

What is the government going to change? What is under review? What's the consultation about?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think the consultation process is to see if somebody, say 70 years ago, lived within the

confines of the law that existed at that point in time…. As the laws change over time, do they automatically become liable for what happened in the past?

J. MacPhail: Will the minister guarantee that his government is not going to change the premise that selling land releases the seller from his or her obligation to clean up a contaminated site?

Hon. B. Barisoff: At this point in time, it is not the government's intention that the mere sale of the land would actually release you from your obligations to look after the land.

J. MacPhail: Every British Columbian will be watching this very carefully, given the government's current explanation of why they're giving the land to CN for a buck. They'll be watching very carefully what this government does with joint and several liabilities for cleanup of contaminated sites. The current law, if changed, will make British Columbians outraged at this government for changing the law to let the sellers off the hook for the responsibility of cleaning up contaminated sites. They will also be extremely cynical and suspicious and outraged about the reason why they are changing the law, given their explanation of selling billions of dollars of land to CN for a buck.

J. MacPhail: The reason I had that debate with the minister, Mr. Chair, on his intentions is exactly what's happening under section 3…. Last year the government under Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, changed the definition of contaminated site. They took out the phrase "special waste," and they replaced it with a definition of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste, which replaced special waste under the previous act, which I think was called the Waste Management Act…. Hazardous was then defined as "having the prescribed meaning." Special waste under the previous legislation had been actually defined. This government changed special waste to hazardous waste and then said: "Go to the regulations to see what the definition is."

Now, under this legislation, under section 3, we're taking out hazardous waste, and we're just going with "prescribed substance" in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed risk-based criteria. Special waste is gone, hazardous waste is gone, and we've got a prescribed substance in quantities or concentrations exceeding prescribed risk-based criteria. Can the minister actually tell us what the prescribed substances are? Could he read the list into the record?

Hon. B. Barisoff: In the special waste reg, the prescribed substances are actually in that regulation right now. The member opposite could look them up, or we could go and get them and read them into the record if she desires to do that.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking what the prescribed substances are going to be now, pursuant to the new section 3 that deletes any reference to special waste. Special waste is gone, so the regulation that the minister talks about is meaningless because it is a regulation describing special waste. That's gone. What are the prescribed substances referred to in section 3?

Hon. B. Barisoff: What we're doing here is that the on-site substances and the off-site substances are now the same. We haven't taken any substances off the regulation at all. The regulation stays the same. It's just that we brought them together into one.

J. MacPhail: Well, that assumes that the public has confidence in this government to, first of all, make regulations public and then the confidence not to change them. Of course, no one has any confidence in the government that they will not change regulations behind closed doors.

The minister is saying that the hazardous waste regulation that exists pursuant to Bill 57, which hasn't been proclaimed, stays in effect and is added to in terms of prescribed substances. What would those prescribed substances that are being added to the regulation of hazardous waste be?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We haven't got that list yet, but we take our advice from the Science Advisory Board, and that's where that list is actually formulated.

J. MacPhail: Okay. What are the prescribed risk-based criteria? We're passing legislation here. Can't the minister at least read something into the record?

Hon. B. Barisoff: To the member opposite: the numbers have never been in legislation, whether they've been with our government or in past governments. They've always been in the regulations. There's a whole schedule here in schedule 6, "Generic Numerical Water Standards." It goes right through the whole thing. If the member wants, I can make sure she has a copy of that.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister read into the record what regulations numbers he is referring to? And does he guarantee that those are not going to be changed?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The regulation is B.C. reg 375/96. No, I can't guarantee that we're not going to change them, because that's why we're meeting with the Science Advisory Board — to understand which ones they think should be changed.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's what I'm asking for. Why is the minister bringing in legislation to change this

when he doesn't himself know how he is going to change it, when the original act hasn't even been passed or proclaimed? What's the hurry? Why can't we have full public disclosure of this before the changes are made? These are serious matters. We're talking about contaminated sites here. We're talking about the well-being of our Earth.

The minister is rushing this through. He's not telling us what changes he's going to make. The consultation hasn't been completed. The original legislation isn't even in effect now, so it's not like he has to hurry because his government is changing things the way they promised. Thank God they're not managing this issue competently from their own agenda, because I don't think it should be changed. He quotes regulation 375/96 and then can't guarantee that that's what will be there in the future. What are we debating? Why can't the minister wait for the Science Advisory Board and then bring in the regulation to demonstrate what the changes are before we pass this section?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The prescribed substances are staying the same for now, but as the member opposite also knows, science is changing all the time. When we can, we will change with the science as we get the advice from the scientific advisory panel.

J. MacPhail: Well, no, I don't know that science is changing all the time. That's why I'm asking the government to prove its case. Why would anyone take this government's word on anything related to contaminated sites?

If science is changing, perhaps the minister could actually put those changes on the record before he passes sweeping legislation that allows the government to change the matters of a prescribed substance behind closed doors. Really, Mr. Chair, I must say that around the debate on section 3, I have far less confidence — given the minister's answers — than I did prior to even rising to debate this matter.

Hon. B. Barisoff: To assure the member that we are getting good advice, the Science Advisory Board is made up of some of the best scientific minds from UVic, UBC and Simon Fraser. That's how we make our decisions — not at the political whim of the government.

J. MacPhail: My point is: how are we supposed to know? How is the public supposed to know that it's the best scientific advice? It's all secret. There is no opportunity to debate or challenge or confirm. So don't give me that — that this government isn't making political decisions. Of course they're making political decisions, because they're doing it behind closed doors. They refuse to release what the Science Advisory Board is recommending before passing this legislation.

I don't know what the urgency is around this legislation. They haven't even got their act together to pass the original legislation. It is ridiculous for this minister to stand up and say that they're getting the best scientific advice. Are we just supposed to take that on the word of the minister? No, we're not. I don't care whether the minister's got the best science advisers in the world. They still have to be public about their recommendations.

J. MacPhail: Will the Science Advisory Board's recommendations be public before the regulation is passed, and will they be put out for public consultation and comment?

J. MacPhail: That was a two-part question. Will they be made public — the recommendations — and will they be put out for public consultation and comment?

J. MacPhail: In second reading we noted that the existing section 44 of the Environmental Management Act, which is Bill 57, runs a full six sections plus a number of subsections and takes up two pages of that statute. It's now being replaced by a new section 44, which barely takes up half a page. The explanatory note under this legislation, Bill 13, says that the determination of a contaminated site is to be moved to regulation. Well, that's what this government does with everything. We've just had that debate.

Will all the procedures that are currently in section 44 of the Environmental Management Act, Bill 57, be moved to regulation as is?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The intention is not to take out any requirements, but some of the wording certainly could change.

J. MacPhail: Well, shall we go through it, then, line by line? I'm not quite sure why the minister is making this change. Which parts of section 44(2) under the old act, Bill 57, will still be required? Perhaps the minister could actually go through it, then, line by line.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The provisions that are on that page will stay but, as the member can read in section 6, expand the types of information a director can rely on in making the determination, so I think that's the key line there.

J. MacPhail: Well, whatever. I guess the minister is referring to the fact that a director may rely on any information the director considers sufficient for that

purpose, but the minister is confirming that Bill 57, section 44(2)(a) through (f), will be part of the requirements for determining a contaminated site under the new section 44 of Bill 13.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Not necessarily in that wording but pretty well…. Yes, it would be, but not in the wording that you have indicated.

Section 44(5) of Bill 57 says: "In addition to a site in respect of which a director makes a determination under subsection (1), a site is considered to be or to have been a contaminated site if a director has done any of the following…." Then it has (a) through (e) for determinations that the director must go under. Will those determinations remain in place under the Bill 13, section 44 process?

J. MacPhail: On section 6 — again, new section — let me ask this question on section 44(4). I want to explore what that means. Does it mean that the only decision of a director that can be appealed is the determination of a contaminated site and not any of the evidence used to determine or deny that a site is contaminated? What does 44(4) mean under section 6?

Hon. B. Barisoff: You can actually appeal anything, but it's not until the whole process is finished so that somebody isn't appealing partway through the determination of what's happening. They have to wait until the whole determination is done, and then they can make the appeal, but you can appeal any part of it.

J. MacPhail: All right, so the determination has to be done first. Then either the whole determination can be appealed, or the factors used by the director to make that determination can also be appealed. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Section 8(c) in Bill 13. This amendment removes the requirement that the level of remediation and level of any remaining contaminants are recorded in the site registry. I'm not quite sure how it is going to work now. The site registry is established under section 43 of the Environmental Management Act, and there is a whole page there describing the site registry — 43(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) — and it's very specific what the site registry must do. I mean, 43(1) of the Environmental Management Act — which remains in place, as far as I understand — says: "The minister must establish a site registry, and appoint a registrar to manage the site registry." Then 43(4), for instance, says: "The registrar must enter by notation into the site registry information referred to in subsections (2) and (3) and decisions of the appeal board."

I just got from the government's own website today the acknowledgment that the site registry remains. I'll describe what the website says about the site registry. The ministry's own website, as of today, says: "A site registry permits easy access to information about sites in B.C. Basic characteristics of a site, as well as legal events and milestones in the remediation process will be recorded. The registry also provides information for land transactions and will serve as a ready source of information for the general public. It will be publicly accessible by computer through B.C. OnLine."

My question is — I assume the minister is still keeping the site registry: what is the intent of section 8(c)? How does that change the information that will be recorded for the site registry? I'll just give one other point here. Maybe section 53(3)(b) is redundant, and that's what you're doing here. Or is there now a policy that information about remediation and any substances remaining on the site do not have to be recorded at the site registry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The issuance of the site certificate is not predicated on (b), but site registry section 43 still is in existence.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. The site registry still exists, but I'm trying to figure out how the site registry will exist in the future. Site registry is not being changed. There's still a legal requirement for the site registry. The government's description as of today of the site registry is that it permits easy access to information about sites in B.C. Basic characteristics of a site, as well as legal events and milestones in the remediation process, will be recorded.

This legislation that we're debating right now removes the requirement for the collection of information about the remediation and any substances remaining on the site to be recorded in the site registry. That's what the minister is removing. Section 8 is deleting 53(3)(b) and (c) from the original Bill 57. What that said, which the government is now repealing…. I'll read it into the record. It says: "A director, in accordance with the regulations, may issue a certificate of compliance with respect to mediation of a contaminated site if…(b) information about the remediation and any substances remaining on the site has been recorded in the site registry." That's being removed. So what information does have to be provided for the site registry now, given that that requirement is being removed?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If the member looks back at the site registry section, 43, and looks at (2)(a) and (b), "(2)(a) all site profiles, preliminary site investigations and detailed investigations that the director receives,"

and "(b) all orders, approvals, voluntary remediation agreements and decisions, including determinations under section 44 (3) [determination of contaminated sites], made by the director under this Part…." I think where we are, we're covering that off. It's covered off in the site registry.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, then, the minister is saying that the old 53(3)(b), which said information about the remediation and any substances remaining on the site needing to be recorded in the site registry…. Full provision, which is being eliminated, is covered under section 43.

In other words, what I want to know is…. I mean, the minister can stand up and say: "Oh, it was a duplicate requirement." I want to know that by the deletion, the repealing of 53(3)(b), we're still going to get every single piece of information that used to have to be provided to the site registry still being legally mandated to be put on the site registry.

J. MacPhail: Section 16 of Bill 13 amends section 64(2)(m) of Bill 57, and it removes the requirement that the director develop a protocol for "establishing formats for summaries of site investigations and remediation plans for the purposes of their entry into the site registry." That requirement is now being removed. My question on this is the same as my previous question. Will all of that information that used to be required under 64(2)(m) still be required for inclusion in the site registry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: We're actually not taking anything away. We're actually adding two things: site profiles and summary of site conditions.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I saw that, but you're striking out the words "for the purposes of their entry into the site registry." The government is removing that requirement. So sub-subsection (m) will now read, "establishing formats for summaries of site investigations," and you will add "site profiles, summaries of site conditions," but you are taking away the words "for the purposes of their entry into the site registry."

That's my question. Will this information still be legally required to be entered into the site registry?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The amendment to section 21 corrects a drafting error in the first reading bill by replacing the words "as re-enacted by section 161" with the words "as amended by section 161(b)."

This House amendment has been identified as necessary because not making this change would make this section of the bill inoperative. The result of this amendment is that section 21 of Bill 13 will read: "Section 946.1 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, as amended by section 161 (b) of the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, is amended by striking out 'section 40 (4)' and substituting 'section 40 (2).'"

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; K. Stewart in the chair.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. B. Barisoff: This House amendment is being made to correct the inadvertent omission in the proposed amendment of section 112 of the Environmental Management Act as set out in section 7 of this bill. Section 112(2) as proposed for the amendment in section 7 of the bill is intended to exempt samples taken from regulatory inspection purposes for the requirement under the Offence Act concerning the reporting of seizures of property to a justice.

However, the amendment in the bill does not take into account that there is a consequence to the effect of (3) as currently written; (3) is intended to exempt seizures of hazardous waste seized for public safety reasons from the Offence Act requirements. Technically, such seizures do not qualify as taking of samples in the course of an inspection, but the policy is to treat them in the same way as regards to reporting requirements. An amendment to (3) is, therefore, needed in that it takes the change to (2) into account in order to continue this exemption and thereby prevent unnecessary administrative burden.

The result of section 112 of the Environmental Management Act will read: Seizures and prevention orders, 112. One, if in the course of the inspection under section 109 — entry on property — or section 111 — inspection of vehicles — the officer considers that a person is contravening this act or the regulations, the officer may, (a), seize anything that the officer considers should be seized and, (b), order the person to do anything the officer considers necessary to stop the contravention or prevention of another contravention. Two, sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act do not apply in relation to anything taken in the course of an inspection authorized by section 109, entry on a property or 111, inspection of vehicles, of this act, unless (1) of this section applies, in which case section 23(4) of the Offence Act applies and, for that purpose, the officer is deemed to be a peace officer. Three, section 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act does not apply to anything dealt with under section 111(3) of this act.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move an amendment to section 11 standing in my name in orders of the day.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The amendment concerns section 11 of this bill and is being made for the same reason as the previous House amendment to address the drafting omission relating to the application of reporting requirements under the Offence Act. In this case, the provision in question is section 20 of the Integrated Pest Management Act.

The intent behind section 11 of this bill, like the amendment concerning section 112 of the Environmental Management Act, is to exempt things taken in the course of inspections from evidence reporting requirements of the Offence Act. In this case, the House amendments will amend section 20(7) in order to reflect the change to subsection (2) and to address the statutes of contaminated items that are seized and destroyed in the interest of the public safety, public health and safety.

The House amendments will preserve the effect of subsection (7) as it would have applied prior to the amendments of subsection (2). Items seized and destroyed under section 4 will be exempted from the Offence Act reporting requirements, thereby avoiding unnecessary administrative burden.

The result of section 20 of the Integrated Pest Management Act will read: Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act do not apply in relation to anything taken in the course of inspection authorized under sections 17, 18 or 19 of this act unless subsection (1) of this section applies, in which case, section 23(4) of the Offence Act applies and for that purpose, an inspector is deemed to be a peace officer. Section 7, sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act and subsection (3) of this section do not apply, (2) and (3), and do not apply in respect to anything ordered destroyed under subsection (4)(b) of this section.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 16, Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a third time and passed.

D. Hayer: I have two of our friends here from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. One is Dave Vaishnav of Save 2 Sell Realty. The other one is Debbie Jay, communication coordinator with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. They're here for the British Columbia Real Estate Association's meeting with the members and doing a good job. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates debate of the Ministry of Forests with the astounding, astonishing and very clever Minister of Forests.

M. Hunter: I've got three or four areas that I'd like to canvass with the minister this afternoon. The first is with respect to the tenure takeback and the legislation that we passed, the revision to the Forest Act. I wonder if the minister could give me an indication of where we are in that process. I have lots of woodlot operators, smaller — some private land owners who are interested in where the future is going. I wonder if it's possible for the minister to give me an update on where we are in that process and examples, perhaps, of where changes have been made that I can give to my own constituents.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It is obviously a significant part of the forest revitalization strategy that was announced one year ago — well, just over one year ago. The logic, as the member knows, was to facilitate the creation of some new opportunities for practitioners in the forestry field — first nations, for example, and community tenures, community forests, woodlot owners. It's not the first time that this has been talked about — to provide those new opportunities — but it is and has been a difficult if not impossible thing to do in the past, where so much of the tenure is locked up in long-term replaceable licences. So we said we were going to take from the major licensees, and we built in a threshold.

If I might, to the Leader of the Opposition, who has just entered, there were some other questions from other members, so we decided to….

Hon. M. de Jong: Okay. In order to facilitate that, there was a need to embark upon a reallocation exercise that involved the major licensees. The member's question is: where are we at that way? It might be helpful if I laid out what the program has been. We spent a considerable amount of time working with the affected parties to identify by licence the areas, the volumes that were going to be subject to the reallocation. It's important to keep this in mind.

What we didn't say in the legislation passed last year is that it would be 20 percent of each licence. It was agreed by virtually everyone that we wanted to have sufficient flexibility to make decisions that made sound business sense in terms of business units and operating units, so there was a variety. In some cases, in a few rare cases, licences were affected 100 percent. In other cases, licences were affected to the tune of less than 20 percent or not affected at all, but on balance the cumulative effect had to be 20 percent. That's because we needed representative volume in order to drive the new market pricing system that's been in place on the coast and has, I might modestly say, led to a significant return to work and revitalization of activity on the coast. We needed representative volume for the first nations, for the communities, for the woodlot owners.

We're now at a point, Mr. Chair, where those volumes have been identified — largely identified by licence. That was done and communicated and verified in letters to the impacted licensees, and we're now working with those stakeholders, including the licensees obviously, to identify areas on the ground from where those volumes would take place. Everyone's got

an interest in that. If you're a first nation, you obviously have interest in seeing volumes located within your asserted traditional territory. If you're a woodlot licensee or a prospective woodlot licensee, you have an interest in where those volumes come from. If you're a community with an interest in a community tenure, you would have an interest in seeing some of those volumes come from an area in closer proximity to the community itself. That all makes sense. At the same time, we as a Crown have an interest in making sure that we have the representative volume for the timber sale component to this that we need to drive the market pricing system.

Where we're at right now is working by licensee and by licence through an identification process. I should tell the member this. We've settled on a priority approach to this, and it goes like this. We're going to do the midcoast–northwest first, then the coast and then the interior of the province. That is a reflection of the respective economic challenges that those areas are facing as they relate to forestry.

In addition, we will in all likelihood, with some certainty, effect this in two stages: firstly, by and large, the volume related to the timber sale program and then, secondly, the volume as it relates to the other tenures — the first nations, the community forests and the woodlots. The objective is to have the first stage complete by the end of calendar year. When I say complete — I think the member knows but perhaps can convey to others — the process is not complete until the Minister of Forests signs off on the ministerial order.

What that allows, and this is very important, is for operations to continue in the hands of the original licensee. What we're looking to effect here is as seamless a transition as possible. The timber isn't going anywhere, nor should it disappear administratively into some black hole in Victoria. If it is going to the timber sale program, we want it to be in a position on the day that it comes back functionally from the licensee to be issued as a licence opportunity for someone else. The target for the first stage of this is the end of the calendar year, and then in 2005 for the remainder as it relates to the smaller licensees and the first nations component. Hopefully, that gives the member a broader sense of where we're at in terms of the time line.

I wonder if you could give me a little clarification or maybe some information about the opportunities for changes in tenure or ownership of pieces of parcels of forest land. In my community, certainly with the urban interface area, with the forest changing as the community grows…. Gabriola Island is a good example, where there's lots of forested land where people are looking to try and create some more stable future than perhaps a woodlot might provide. To be blunt about it, some people don't want to see some of the trees harvested. I don't even know in that particular example if they're worth harvesting.

Is this process of negotiating with licence holders — I guess including the Crown, because we own a fair amount of timber as the Crown…? Is there a process in place to deal with these issues of urban interface where perhaps a piece of land that was usable and useful as forest land in the past might better be used as parkland in the future? Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I'll try this from a slightly different angle. The Minister of State for Forestry Operations and I, as recently as this weekend, were talking with some people of the community forest association. They made a point not that dissimilar to what the member said, which is that there are in certain parts of the province, especially in rural/urban interface areas, forested areas that have largely become inaccessible for commercial forest operations for any variety of reasons — the evolution of the community around them, the attitudes of the people there. Sometimes it's other considerations.

The point they have made is that in many instances, some of that inaccessibility is attributable to the suspicion that many people have around operators who may come in from elsewhere to conduct those operations; whereas if the tenure was held by the community itself or a local resident via a woodlot, we might actually see some of these areas heretofore inaccessible becoming either partially or entirely accessible for some degree of economic activity.

The one qualifier I would put on that, and I do so as candidly as I can…. This process of tenure reallocation is designed to reallocate tenure for the purpose, primarily, of encouraging economic activity. It is not a pseudonym for the park creation strategy. Insofar as communities may have strategies for the creation of a community-based tenure and will make decisions around that, I have been fairly candid, I think, with them that if it's a park we want to create, then let's create a park. But my notion of a community forest is a working community forest.

M. Hunter: Yes, thank you. That's very helpful in a couple of areas in my community to have that clarity, so I'd like to thank the minister for that.

The minister talked about market-priced stumpage systems that were introduced earlier in the year. I think it's fair to say that amongst the folks in the forest industry I talked to, there's a fair degree of, I would say, encouragement and even excitement. Actually, that was a major milestone, a major event that was put in place in the industry. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate whether there are numbers available to the ministry that would give us any more than anecdotal information about increases in employment activity in the forests. I hear all kinds of stories, but it's hard to take a bunch of individual employers, companies and contractors, and try and add it all up. Is there an independent source that might suggest what the introduction of MPS has done in terms of employment, at least in the coastal sector, which is where the market-priced stumpage has been introduced?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am — like the member, I think, who regularly and diligently has tracked this through good days and bad — very, very enthusiastic about what we have seen take place, particularly over the last number of months. I don't yet have quantifiable numbers that I would be offering with appropriate levels of confidence.

I do know this, and the member knows this better than I do. For the first time in a heck of a long time, we are seeing advertisements in local newspapers seeking people to be employed back out in the woods. Anecdotally, the complaint I have been subjected to most recently — a couple of weeks ago, up-Island — was: "I can't find enough truck drivers; I can't find enough heavy-duty mechanics." That is a very different story than, obviously, was the case a year ago. The numbers reveal a trend that is positive.

I'm going to say this. As anxious as I am to celebrate victory and declare the corner turned — and I think it is — I'm going to be reluctant about issuing those celebratory statements until we see this continued and maintained. The member is right. For the first time in a long time, the advertisements are appearing seeking workers. The complaint I receive is a complaint for a shortage of workers.

You know, the other thing — and I'm sure we're going to talk about it in part — is that there are still communities in the coastal industry that face some pretty serious challenges. I can think of Port Alice right off the top of my head. The trendlines are good, and the numbers and the significance of those numbers for workers and their families. I am told that the implementation of the market pricing system served to reinforce and in some ways accelerate that, but the proof is always in the pudding. The longevity of that trendline is something we have to watch very carefully.

M. Hunter: Yes, thank you. I agree. Certainly in my area, as I said, the anecdotal information is pretty encouraging at this stage of the game, so let's keep it up.

I wanted to switch track a little bit and talk about perhaps one of the more contentious issues we have. Certainly, it's brought to my attention frequently in Nanaimo by constituents, and it's perhaps more contentious than softwood tariffs. That is the issue of raw log exports. The minister knows that I have been pretty frank, I think, with people on this issue. I believe that when it comes to exports of raw materials from Crown lands, we have a system in place which makes sure that the product is available for sale in British Columbia. We have to ask the question: how come the price in Portland, Oregon, is higher than in Vancouver? That's the important question we have to ask. I am confident that as we see the coastal industry begin to come back to some state of health, this issue with respect to Crown lumber will disappear.

There is a continuing issue with respect to exports of lumber from privately held land. As the minister knows, in my area, much — in fact, a very large percentage — of the volume of the cut is actually off private land. There is a federal regulation, as I understand it, that pertains to telling people what they can or cannot do with product they grow on their own land. I wonder if the minister could explain or give an update on where things are with respect to the regulation of exports of raw lumber from privately held land in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is: about where they have been for some time. There obviously continues to be, in my view, a strong negative reaction amongst the populace around what has been over the past, I would say, five or six years a pretty significant increase in the harvest and export of unprocessed timber off of private lands, not matched but met by a pretty aggressive lobby on the part of those with private land holdings to remove the restrictions or the application of any regulations that would purport to restrict their ability to export that timber. Nothing has changed in that respect.

I think the member knows that the position we have adopted as a government with respect to any trade negotiations is that the present restrictions and regulatory regime will remain in place. That is a position that enjoys support, by and large.

I should come back and say this. When we talk about this issue, we tend to focus in on the position of a couple of major licensees, mostly because those are the people that own vast tracts of private land. It's also an issue for small private land holders, and it's there where it becomes, to a certain extent for many people, a little more problematic. If you're a small private land holder in the East Kootenay with very small volumes of timber but can realize a 30 percent or 40 percent premium on the price of those modest volumes of logs by shipping them south of the border, there's an obvious attraction to doing so.

I still think and say that the objective we have to work towards achieving — and I hope and believe we are making modest progress — is a day when we can harvest that timber competitively in British Columbia and when processors can pay a competitive rate for that timber within British Columbia, and the attraction or the incentive to seek out an export market for unprocessed timber will largely disappear. I am also mindful of the fact that although recognizing the member approaches this with a specific interest insofar as the coastal industry is concerned, it is not an issue that people in the interior are blind to, particularly given the volumes of infested wood and the fact that there is a saturation point at which the North American market, at least, can't absorb more 2-by-4s. That's why we have to look at alternate products and alternate uses for that fibre.

M. Hunter: I want to switch to the final area that I want to canvass, which is with respect to the pulp sector. The minister mentioned Port Alice as an example of a community perhaps with problems, a community where there is a pulp mill. I often think that the pulp

sector of the forest industry is kind of forgotten. It tends to be away in a bay somewhere. Even in my own community it's visible. Once in a while you see the smokestacks, and they drift over town.

I don't think many people in our province actually understand the importance of the pulp sector. Perhaps historically, I think, people recognize it was there. The old saying was that it's the smell of money, but those smells disappeared a long time ago.

I do think that what we are looking at in our pulp sector is a business that has huge challenges within the huge challenges facing the entire forest sector. Here are challenges that are occurring in a sector which is actually high value-added for the most part. Obviously, if you're in pulp and paper, the value-added is a little higher, but we shouldn't underestimate the value-adding that goes from pulpwood and chips into pulp products that are exported all over the world and, from my community particularly, into Europe and China.

I am obviously concerned about the viability of this sector. It seems to me that they've had considerable difficulty. Every problem we've had in the forest industry…. The supply of logs and chips to the industry is problematic. I just wanted to scope out at this point what the attitude of the Minister of Forests is to this industry.

I think that the financial problems it faces, the marketing challenges it faces, with competition from southern radiata pine and other — even hardwood — pulp products from competing jurisdictions…. British Columbia no longer owns the pulp market. I'm not convinced that the management of our forest industry, both at the government level and at the private sector level, has actually come to grips yet with the new world of pulp. I'd like to know what kind of plans the ministry has with respect to looking at the pulp sector as a continuing, viable part of our forest industry.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, he's quite right. It is an incredibly important component of our overall forestry economy. Depending on how you measure it, the employment numbers can reflect the importance…. Well, they do reflect the importance of that industry.

There are all kinds of issues that impact on this and figure in our thinking as we consider strategies moving forward. Many of them are consistent with what we've already done. The pulp industry has to operate on a competitive basis and be able to pay competitive rates for the fibre. We have to make sure there's fibre available for them to bid competitively on. That is certainly one thing.

We have to be mindful of the fact that the cycles in this market have been something akin to a roller-coaster. Happily, at the moment we seem to be on the ascendancy, and the pulp prices are very good. That's a positive development as well, but people that have watched this industry long enough will know that they are cyclical, so we have to plan accordingly.

We have worked with the pulp sector in terms of the policies that have been developed around things like utilization. Happily, there is a degree of acceptance and actually support for that.

But look, there are some pretty big challenges out there when it comes to pulp. You don't have to look any further than two examples. One is in the northwest of the province in Skeena — New Skeena or Skeena Cellulose — and the other is up the Island from where the member lives, in Port Alice — different kinds of facilities, different kinds of pulp, similar challenges and challenges that have visited upon people in a very real way and, in the case of Port Alice, are causing real anxiety right now. Happily, the mayor will be meeting with the Premier tomorrow, in fact, and we are endeavouring to identify every possible strategy that can be employed to ensure the ongoing viability of both the operation and the town that relies upon it.

If I might just take a moment, this member has distinguished himself in my view by providing constant and timely reminders, to myself and to the government in general, of the importance that this industry represents. He has facilitated meetings with representatives of organized labour within the pulp industry, with officials on the management side. To the extent that those meetings have taken place, there is in my view a healthy sense or degree of willingness to cooperate. What's the bottom line here? Pulp prices are on the upswing right now. They're at pretty good levels, and we should be capitalizing on that.

We should recognize something else the member said. We're not the only supplier anymore. That world is changing, and I will say this. In that new world — that new, very competitive world — any disruption to the supply of our product to customers can be devastating. The member comes from a background where he knows of which I speak. He knows, also, and will be watching and is watching very carefully the developments in the dispute that presently exists in the towing and barge industry. We're tracking that. We're trying to ensure that we stay ahead.

You know, at a time when the coastal industry on the timber side and on the pulp side is beginning to show some real signs of life, it would be incredibly foolish on everyone's part if we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage through any kind of prolonged labour disruption.

G. Trumper: Minister, these are some general questions. It's regarding the takeback, which I'm quite sure you're fully aware of, in my area. I think I'd just like to give a bit of a background. Certainly, I think everybody recognizes the changes that had to take place. The difficulty comes when it's a very specific area that is being proposed for takeback.

One of the issues, as well as that, is that on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which certainly went through a very difficult time following the Clayoquot…. Consequently, one of the companies moved out. Interfor did stay, so they are doing some work there. One of the big issues there is with small contractors who are not able to get on the traditional lands of some of the bands out there without some discussions

taking place — I suppose that would be the best way of putting it — which makes it very difficult for the small contractors on the west coast.

At the same time, there is an agreement with some of the first nations and with one of the companies on a joint venture program, a joint program there, with Iisaak, which on a very regular basis does not take out its annual allowable cut. That's causing issues out on the west coast as well, which is making it very difficult for those people who are reliant on the forest industry to make a living. Certainly, it is causing a great deal of friction on the west coast.

We then come to the 20 percent in the Alberni Valley which is proposed to be taken out of one area. Having had meetings with some of the contractors there who, certainly at the beginning, were very supportive of where we were going with the 20 percent takeback, with so much going to communities and to first nations…. They are now very antsy about it, because they do have a fear that with the proposal being mooted by the one company which we have contractors in there…. Some of them have been told they will no longer be logging in that area.

For the last considerable length of time, the 20 percent takeback has been, I'm told, used as one of the reasons why not a great deal of logging is taking place in that particular division, which is putting over a hundred families in a very difficult position. I can tell you I've had them in my office, and some are very distraught because they don't know where it's going.

I've heard you say many, many times to people, when you have been asked, that this has to be fair to the communities. Certainly, we have a percentage that is going to first nations and is going to communities. I wonder if you, minister, could maybe reiterate how you see the 20 percent working, how you see woodlots being involved and how you see community forests coming into this, which will give some confidence to, maybe, the people who are working there or who are hoping to work there or who have small companies that have invested a huge amount of money and are now very, very concerned. This is one area that isn't picking up where everywhere else is picking up on the west coast with the changes that we've made. It's pretty tough there right now.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, let me say that the specifics of the situation this member alludes to in and around her community are reasonably well known to me. The reason for that is because this member has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure they are well known to me and to facilitate direct contact between those who are impacted or potentially impacted and myself and officials within the ministry and even the Premier.

I want to commend her for the diligence she has shown in that respect and also for two things: not being shy about being pretty blunt about where those concerns are and also being innovative in endeavouring to identify where some of the solutions might lie. That is a healthy combination, because unless we're prepared to acknowledge up front what those concerns are, we're not going to have much success in trying to alleviate them. That's a good recipe.

Let me say this to begin with, and I don't say it to be trite or dismissive of the concern, which is very real. We do have to approach this from this perspective: the trees aren't going anywhere. That is a fundamentally important concept for us to come to grips with, because I know for some people, the notion that the agency that has control of a licence or a tree…. A change in that control is akin to the subject timber disappearing off the face of the earth, and that's not the case. Now, it can happen administratively if we don't proceed with this in a sensible way, and that is the black hole into which volume can disappear. We need to be careful that that doesn't happen.

I told another community that I would use them as an example, so I feel as if I have some licence to do this. The community is Hope. Every community in B.C. is unique, but insofar as this reallocation process would impact on them and impact upon a company crew — a different company than the one operating in the member's area — there was precisely the same anxiety. In fact, in Hope the proposal would see the entire licence reallocated. So it's not even a question, as it is in the member's community, about allocation of the takeback volume between two different areas within the same licence. It's the whole licence — as one might expect, great anxiety. There's still anxiety. But when we started to sit down with the IWA….

I should say this as well, if I didn't earlier. This member has been instrumental in facilitating dialogue not just between the licensee and government but, perhaps more importantly, between the workers and government via their bargaining agent, the IWA, and that's a good thing. That's a very good thing.

In the case of Hope, the same process is taking place. What the parties have realized…. The Minister of State for Forestry Operations and I had continued discussions with Hope as recently as Friday night in Revelstoke at the community forest meeting. I'll come to the community forest situation in a moment. The realization grew that the reason the reallocation was necessary was for the Crown to meet its obligations to first nations — generally, the Stó:lô people in Hope.

What has emerged out of the preliminary discussions is a realization that the timber still needs to be harvested. The logical people to conduct that harvesting activity are the people that are doing it now. They will continue to do it for the original licensee until such time as we have worked out the details of the reallocation. While we're doing that, the discussions between those workers and those first nations have already begun to ascertain what I would suggest is eminently logical — an arrangement whereby they become the front line of continued harvesting operations and provide some training and capacity building for those first nations.

And who knows in that case? There is already talk of getting beyond mere harvesting of the fibre, but ex-

panding into some form of secondary manufacturing. Now, first things first, and let's not create expectations until there is a reasonable prospect that they will be realized.

In the member's example, we have seen some genuine innovation. She said something that, it occurs to me, is spot on. As we move from the theoretical to the specific, the anxiety levels immediately went up, because this was no longer just a theory. It was possible to begin to identify how this might impact in a very real way.

At the same time, this member has been instrumental in bringing together a coalition of people within her community who are interested in a community forest opportunity. It's a unique community because there is expertise there that, to be blunt, doesn't exist in every community across British Columbia — expertise as it relates to management of the forest, harvesting, processing. It is a part of being from Port Alberni, if I can localize it to Port Alberni. Along with Mayor McRae and other leaders, there is genuine innovation taking place. That innovative attitude has always been there, I think, in my sense of Port Alberni.

The biggest obstacle to it being realized has been the inability to access fibre. I think the challenge here is to get from where we are today to a situation where Port Alberni and its community leadership have actually acquired some control over a portion of the fibre basket in the Port Alberni valley — where they can make decisions that have a positive economic impact for the people there. It is, at the risk of inciting a reaction, the most direct form of appurtenancy I can think of — where local people actually control a portion of that fibre.

We don't get there without doing this. It is the harsh reality. We don't get there without addressing the fact that the bulk of the fibre there is controlled by a single licensee, and that is going to change. But when you look at some of the projects that have arisen out of there — and the member has been instrumental in helping to facilitate some of those projects — I have a level of confidence that we can make this work to everyone's benefit.

The last thing I'll say, Mr. Chair — and some people will believe this, and I suppose some people won't — is that we didn't wake up one day and think it would be fun to reallocate 20 percent of the fibre, because it's not. It's fraught with difficulties and anxieties, particularly through the transition. But in order to create the new opportunities, in order to meet our obligations to first nations, in order to have a truly market-based pricing system, it needs to occur. For too long people have talked about all of these good things without acknowledging the obvious, which is the challenge involved in getting there.

Part of my optimism is based on the work this member has done. I know that she will continue to raise the issue and the corollary issues on a regular basis. I know when she gets replies or responses or non-replies or non-responses — as the case might be — that don't address the heart of the issue, she won't be shy in pointing that out.

G. Trumper: It would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that people in the community, such as the IWA president and the companies, have certainly been working hard amongst themselves to come up with some solutions. I know they've had meetings, and I'm just about to organize some more meetings next week.

You can either go with the change, or you can buck it. I've said to everybody….

But change is a challenge. I've always said the trees will always be there. They're not going anywhere, as you have said, and so if the company doesn't want to fell the trees, then let somebody else do it. I think people do understand that, but it's the issue of change which is very challenging.

The question that has been asked of me, and this does deal with the employees who are probably…. There are those that have some issues right now with the company, and I think that's a separate issue. That is something they and the company have to sort out. But the ones who are going to be displaced when the change takes over…. The question I have been asked by not only the employees but also some of the companies on compensation is: when do you see that rolling out?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is actually an excellent and timely question. It would have been remiss of me not to touch on that.

As the member knows, in order to facilitate a transition of the sort we have been discussing here, we have set some money aside — $75 million to be divided between impacted contractors and impacted employees. I will eliminate any of the suspense. Both of those groups will argue passionately that it's not enough. There is destined to be a lingering disagreement. Nonetheless, that is the fiscal envelope we are working within.

What I can say to the member since we last engaged in this discussion in this chamber and since the pledges were made a year ago as part of the forest revitalization unveiling is that we now, as of last month, have a trustee in place. That trustee, Mr. van Soren, will have a board composed of representatives from organized labour, from the licensees and from the contractors. They are now beginning the process of setting the specific guidelines around how those transitional funds will be paid out. The example the member has given is a good one — that worker.

I hope no one will take offence if I offer an opinion on who I believe we should focus our attention on with respect to those transition funds within the broad class of any employees that may be impacted. I think the

worker who's anywhere in their mid-twenties to late forties wants to keep working. That should be, and is, the primary objective. Let's create an industry that is vibrant enough to reattract the kind of investment that we need to grow employment, whether it's in the primary sector, the harvesting sector or the remanufacturing, value-added sector.

Where I think we need to focus our attention…. I will now shamelessly draw on some of the terminology that members of the IWA, including their national president Dave Haggard, have used. Let's provide a dignified exit for the 55- or 56-year-old forestry worker who has invested a lifetime in the industry and now, through transition and through change in the industry, is in a position where others younger than he or she will come along and play a role in the new industry.

If I have a bias — and I do, I confess — it is to focus attention on those workers to provide them with that dignified exit or transition and to create a circumstance in which we can, as is happening in many parts of the province and some parts of the coastal industry now, start to see some of those employment ads running again where people are being sought out for employment in the industry.

G. Trumper: Those are my questions, and I thank you very much for your forthright answers.

P. Sahota: Last year the minister introduced the forestry revitalization plan, which was designed to create new opportunities throughout British Columbia. I was wondering how that is going. Have new opportunities been created? If he could give us an update on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know it was, by any estimate or stretch of the imagination, a pretty complex and comprehensive change or blueprint for change in the forest sector. We have talked today already about the reallocation of tenure, that commodity by which the industry operates. We have talked about the new opportunities that are entailed in that — new opportunities for first nations, for community tenures, for an expanded woodlot program.

I'm actually glad this member asked this question, because she is from a riding that oftentimes people don't think of as being at the heart of the forest economy, yet I think one of the leading forestry firms in the country operates within the borders of her riding. I'm thinking of Taiga Forest Products and other operators. The shift to market pricing that occurred earlier — roughly a month ago — has, I think, accelerated a revitalization that we are beginning to see signs of.

If I were a member of the public, I might bring some degree of skepticism to this conversation and say: "Well, that's easy to say, but where's the evidence?" I think that might be, in part, her question or the essence of her question. Well, people are going back to work. It's difficult to quantify at this stage, but the member heard me talk earlier anecdotally about those employment ads beginning to run again. I think I have one with me from the interior of the province, but we're even beginning to see that in the coastal industry. My sense is that that positive development around employment and families going back to work is there.

Another indicator — and I happen to think it's an important indicator, because at the end of the day I think it is instrumental to having a healthy forest sector economy — is investment in the industry. Those numbers have, over the last six to 12 months, begun to show some pretty impressive signs — whether it is an OSB plant in Fort St. John worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the largest single investment in over a decade; whether it is the fact that we now have in Houston, B.C., as a result of a significant multimillion-dollar investment, the largest sawmill in the world. Look, I don't think there's any magic, necessarily, in having the largest, but if there's going to be a largest sawmill in the world, as far as I'm concerned, it might as well be in British Columbia. The fact that we achieved that mantle by virtue of a significant multimillion-dollar investment is, for me, a very positive sign.

If you go just outside of Prince George and look at what's happening, the Dunkley mill…. We talk about what's happening on the large side, but here is an independent processor that has made an investment in, I believe, the neighbourhood of $50 million to $60 million, doubling the capacity of their facility. Again, as I was travelling a week or two ago, I saw in the Prince George newspaper a half-page ad looking for employees — signs we haven't seen for a long, long time in British Columbia. In Prince George itself a significant reinvestment by Brink Forest Products in a new, expanded remanufacturing facility — again, I think a very positive sign, a sign where much of this investment will go in the future. Even on the coast, where there has been no end of the challenges, we are beginning to see investment as it relates to upgrading mill facilities.

In the case of the member for Surrey-Tynehead, even…. How is the member? He is good, I think, because we have seen a significant investment in the establishment of a new small-log mill in that member's riding — again, an indication of some degree of confidence. If I think about a community that sort of straddles the interior and the coast, Merritt, one of the major operators there is engaged in significant reinvestment activity.

These are things that perhaps the member is not aware of or many British Columbians aren't — and I think she is — but it is happening steadily, and it is showing a trend. As I said to the member for Nanaimo, I think it is far too early for us to proclaim any degree of satisfaction with where we are, because we have a long way to go. The trend lines are moving in the right direction, although we still have significant challenges. Working through the stages of the reallocation process is one. Trying to find, if we can, a solution on the trade

front is another. Despite those challenges, despite the pine beetle infestation we are, for the first time in a long time in British Columbia, seeing people return in significant numbers to the province — returning to the forest sector and with it significant investment in the forest sector, upwards of half a billion dollars in the last six to ten months.

P. Sahota: Another part of the forestry plan was to diversify the markets so British Columbians would not be reliant on a single market, the Americans. That was also part of the forestry revitalization plan, as I recall. I was wondering if the minister could also give us an update in terms of pursuing other markets, where that is at, and if there is — in terms of the three top markets that the British Columbia forest industry and the ministry are pursuing….

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's another theme that I am pleased a member, and this member, has raised. I've said it before, and some members in the House will chastise me for sounding like a broken record, but surely one of the lessons we have at last learned from the dispute we are embroiled in with our largest trading partner is the vulnerability that accrues when we place all of our trade eggs in one basket — or substantially all of our trade eggs in one basket.

The member has raised a point that I think goes to the heart of us being successful over the long term. Again, I can think of companies within her community and within her riding whose success will be tied to the success we enjoy as a province in gaining access to those new markets. What's the update? What's the status? Well, we're beginning to see some progress.

I hasten to caution everyone that I don't think we're where we need to be or should be, but in the case of an emerging market like China we've taken some pretty significant steps. I will say this. I think the member knows this. She has been instrumental in encouraging, within government, some of these projects and initiatives, but the Premier has taken a specific interest in this. His involvement in the Dream Home China project, which is now on the verge of having construction commence…. In fact, when the Premier was there last, he turned some sod, and we are now into the construction phase for completion later in the year. It's a showcase facility in the heart of Shanghai, in the heart of the fastest-growing housing market in the world — 12 million new homes. You know what? Very few of them are made of wood at this stage. We have to change that.

One of the ways we change it is by taking our product to the People's Republic and saying that this is what you can do with wood. This is how you can build. You can build homes; you can build showcase facilities; you can build semi-detached homes; you can build apartment facilities. These are all of the things you can do on the structural side — and also not neglecting the fact that there is a heck of a lot you can do on the decorative side in terms of finishing products, whether it's flooring, kitchen cabinets or doors and windows.

This is an opportunity that we have, in this incredibly dynamic market, to make an impression and to be in the face of potential customers and say to them: "If it's wood you want — and it should be wood you want because it's the most environmentally friendly product to build with — then you want B.C. wood. You want B.C. product because of how well we do it here, how reliable we are, because of our forest practices." The country that wants to host the green Olympics needs to be aware of where they're purchasing their products.

These are all messages that we are taking into those new markets. We're taking them into Taiwan, we're taking them into Korea, and we are taking them into India. I might take advantage of this opportunity to turn the question on its head to the member and say to her…. She was part of a specific delegation that visited India earlier this year — or late last year. I've now lost track of time. I know that was very much a topic of discussion while that member and her colleagues, along with the Premier, were travelling through India.

I will say this. I think that in the case of India, we're not anywhere near where we should be in terms of expanding that potential market for us. Some of it is cultural, in terms of the uses that wood is put to. You know, markets don't develop on their own. We have to be aggressive, and we have to be smart about developing those new marketplaces.

Those initiatives are taking place. This member, the member for Surrey-Tynehead, other members in this House…. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers, I know, was in India peddling B.C. products in a way that only she can do — in that gentle, non-threatening manner that we have become so accustomed to seeing from the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I hope she'll continue to talk about this. I hope she'll continue to pester the Ministers of Forests and the Premier and serve as a constant reminder of the fact that for the future of this industry — particularly when you consider the volume of timber coming on line in the next ten or 15 years via the pine beetle infestation — we've got to find other markets for this wood.

The last thing I will say is that the Minister of State for Forestry Operations, who usually sits in the chair that Mr. Friesen is occupying right now — God forbid Mr. Friesen is thinking he should sit in anything approaching a political role…. In the pine beetle strategy that the Minister of State for Forestry Operations unveiled, there is a specific initiative aimed at moving that fibre offshore as new products and into new markets. The request for proposals, the request for ideas that was issued a week or two ago, is beginning to show some return. I think we're all optimistic, but we all have to be vigilant.

You know what? It's a competition. We're not the only game in town. Our objective has to be not just to get into the Chinese market or the Indian market or the Taiwanese market or the Korean market, but to do it better than other countries — better than the Scandina-

vians, better than the European Union, better than the Americans and better than the Russians. When I look at the talent we have here in B.C. and in Canada, I don't know why we couldn't accomplish that.

P. Sahota: I can assure the minister that the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and I will continue to pester him on these very important issues. I do agree with the minister in the case of India. I agree we're not anywhere near where we should be in terms of developing markets. When we developed the Japanese market over 20-odd years ago, I mean, it took a long time to develop. I understand that markets take a long time to develop, and we're sort of at the starting gates of this.

Having said that and having the U.S. still being our single biggest market, that brings me to the trade issue. I want to get an update on that — on the softwood lumber dispute. Where is that at? I understand there is going to be a NAFTA ruling at the end of the month, so could the minister update us on that?

Hon. M. de Jong: Notwithstanding the feeling that I believe is increasingly permeating communities, the vast majority of our communities in B.C. who are tied directly to the forestry economy — and of course, all of our communities are tied indirectly…. Notwithstanding the feeling of optimism that is beginning to develop in many of those communities, the question I tend to get asked most frequently is the one the member has just asked, which is: what is the status of that dispute?

Born out of a realization that as long as we're being charged a 27 percent premium at the border with our largest customer, that represents an impediment to realizing the full potential of our industry…. To put this in some kind of perspective, a couple of weeks ago PricewaterhouseCoopers had their annual gathering in Vancouver. First of all, the number that was floated around compared returns in the industry from a year ago, approximately $100 million, and the year just past, $400 million — a significant increase, and yet an increase that was impeded by the ongoing border dispute. The stakes are huge from that perspective.

This member has a history and a knowledge of this, and many members do, and understands the complexity of the negotiations that have taken place. Let me start by restating the obvious. We don't have a deal, despite over two years of efforts. The best way I can explain that at this point is that we resolved at the outset that we weren't going to do a deal simply to stand up in this chamber or somewhere else in B.C. and say: "Look at us. We negotiated a deal." It had to be a deal that made sense, that worked for British Columbia and truly moved us in the direction of free trade and ultimately to the achievement of free trade. That's the first thing.

Prior to Christmas there was an offer tabled by the Americans. I think it is safe to say that that offer did not enjoy sufficient levels of support to conclude an agreement either in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada. Now the question is: where do we go from here?

The first thing I can tell the member and the members of the House is that we have said to the Americans, most recently when Undersecretary of State Grant Aldonas was here a couple of weeks ago to speak at the aforementioned PricewaterhouseCoopers conference, that it was unlikely we would deliver anything in the way of a counterproposal to the American side prior to the NAFTA panel ruling that is expected at the end of this month.

It is a ruling that we are confident about. It is a ruling that we think will further reinforce our position. It is a ruling that goes to the heart of the matter around the U.S. determination of injury and/or threat of injury. At the end of the day, we believe our position will be validated, as it was last year. This is a review of that decision, and everything we have seen in terms of the arguments and in terms of the WTO decisions leaves us confident that our position will again be reinforced.

Having said all of that, we still, at the end of the day, need to find a solution to this. There are people — intelligent, thoughtful people — who would take the position that this is merely a case of waiting for all of the decisions that will ultimately vindicate us and that the issue will go away and that it's simply a case of outwaiting the other side, making our arguments, and the result will follow. I'm not sure it will. I believe we're going to win. But what do we achieve by that victory except an ongoing dispute, which is why I am predisposed and the government is predisposed to attempt ultimately to negotiate a settlement on terms that make sense, on terms that are consistent with the principles of free trade.

The member will know that during his visit here, the Premier, our negotiators and I had some discussions with Mr. Aldonas and indicated our willingness to continue those discussions. I just want to take a moment to emphasize what that means, because there has been some speculation about what the implications of that are for a binational agreement.

That's still our preference. At the end of the day, the objective here is to conclude an agreement that establishes free trade in softwood lumber products on a fair and equitable basis between Canada and the United States. But I will say this to the House. The changes we have made, the move to a market pricing system on the coast — not yet in the interior — and the changes we have made to some longstanding policies that tie the behaviour of our industry directly to prevailing market conditions have been noticed. And they have been noticed by some people south of the border. They've been noticed by other people in B.C., obviously, and some people elsewhere in Canada.

The point we made to Mr. Aldonas is that we're happy he notices. We didn't make these changes for that purpose. We didn't make these changes to impress anyone south of the border. We made them because we believe we need to have a competitive forest sector in British Columbia, and this is the route towards achieving that goal.

There appears — we have always thought this — that there would be some relevance to the trade discussions. It would appear that members of the U.S. Commerce department are beginning to agree with us, so we are prepared and actually are pursuing discussions along those lines. We are leading discussions, and it would seem that it would make sense for the province — that by far and away contributes the majority to this trade issue and that by far and away has the most to gain or lose by whether these discussions lead to a solution or not — to take a leading role in those discussions, recognizing that constitutional authority for concluding treaties rests with the federal government.

We have kept Minister Peterson advised, involved. There has been a good exchange of information. He has done a lot of work in terms of discussions with the Americans and our provincial partners. We have kept our provincial partners involved and advised, but in the same way that no member of this chamber would be surprised if Ontario took a special interest in a leading role in discussions with the Americans around the Auto Pact, we are taking a leading role insofar as discussions with the Americans around softwood lumber is concerned.

I will say this, as well, to the member. If we arrive at a solution — and my hope and preference is that it is a broad national agreement between the two countries — and British Columbia is in a position to take advantage of that agreement, through a changed circumstance review, more quickly than other jurisdictions by virtue of the changes that this chamber and this government have introduced and passed, then I say: "So be it." I say: "Good on us."

That is an advantage, if it does accrue, that accrues to us for having taken as a province, as a government, as forestry communities — having had the courage to take — the steps necessary to move us to a genuine market-based forest policy. That's a rough estimate, and there may be questions that arise out of that.

My last question is surrounding the building of the 2010 Olympic venues. Recently there was an issue regarding LEED, which is a U.S. building rating system. I was wondering if the province and the Olympic committee are restricted to using LEED. Or are there other certification systems that we can use?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way I can answer this is to assure the member that on that glorious day when I don my Lycra suit to head down the two-man luge competition, it will be in and around venues constructed of B.C. wood. The Olympics are going to profile, highlight and promote B.C. wood products. That's the beginning and the end of the statement.

This is our chance to promote and profile to the world that asset with which we are blessed in abundance, which we manage — harvest — better than anywhere else in the world and convert into specialty products and value-added products. That is a feature to the Olympic Games that I know this member, this chamber, this government and this Premier hold dear to and will be reflected.

The member correctly identifies an issue that arose some time ago with a particular building rating system. It does not preclude us from using B.C. wood products in any way, shape or form, and it doesn't represent an impediment. The rating system, the certification process, is an evolving methodology. I know that in past life this member did some work around certification and knows that, in Canada, British Columbia enjoys the highest percentage of certified operations in the entire country.

So we have a good story to tell. The challenge we have and the challenge one would issue to all of those people for whom the notion of a sudden-death hockey game is too difficult to bear and are instead watching these proceedings….

Hon. M. de Jong: I say to both of those people: the challenge is for us to use our imagination as to how we profile those wood products, that we use our imagination around the facilities that are going to be constructed for the structural wood products, that we use our imagination for every facet of these games — whether it's the village, whether it's the medal presentation podium — and that one of the experiences the world takes away with them when they come to visit British Columbia in 2010 is the awe-inspiring sight of how we use western red cedar or any of the numerous species that we are blessed with in abundance here in British Columbia. There is about as long-winded a way as I can think of to say that, yes, British Columbia wood will be featured prominently in the 2010 Olympic experience here in B.C.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Firstly, I would like to indeed congratulate the minister for the legislation he has brought in over the past year and a half to two years. I know it has been very, very difficult, particularly around legislation that involved takeback and redistribution of timber to first nations, to communities and to small logging companies, to get some market competition back in the forest industry and also to look at reinvestment in the coastal forest industry, in particular anything to do with appurtenancy and letting the market forces do their work.

Again, just to comment on, really, the resiliency. When you think of a 20 percent tariff, anti-dumping duties, on our lumber and the strength of the interior forest industry, I think it says a lot to the entrepreneurs out there who are continuing to build our industry and provide the primary support of the economy in the province in spite of the objections and tariffs from the Americans.

Also to thank him. I know he has been back to Ottawa and down to Washington innumerable times — and I know the toll that can take on a person and on

Also, just one other piece of legislation to be dealt with — professional foresters. I know you and I had the opportunity, along with some other members, to go up into the Sechelt Inlet to look at some of the operations up there. I was really impressed with the quality of people that we had on the ground out there in the professional foresters, looking in terms of where they were going to cut, looking at stability of roads, all that sort of thing — the ecology, the tourist industry — and taking all that into consideration in terms of where they were making recommendations for cuts. I think we've really made a lot of progress. Again, as I said earlier, I would like to thank the minister for that ongoing work.

Mr. Chair, today my questions to the minister, perhaps, are a wee bit more mundane, a little bit more specific, but it depends on where you come from in the province. I think most of the questions have been along the broader issues of forestry in British Columbia. Mine are particularly around logs, timber, saw-cut ends, wood waste particularly in the Fraser River, in the Howe Sound and in Georgia strait — which is an ongoing problem, of course, for hazard to shipping in the Georgia strait and in the Fraser River but also, I think as importantly, in terms of waste of our forest resource that we have — and finally the environmental impact that that debris has on our shorelines in many of our more sensitive estuaries.

I'll start off if I can, because I know it's a bit of a jungle out there for us to go at this problem. I believe there are two different programs, and the Minister of Forests may or may not be involved in the first one. The first is the debris trap in the Fraser River at Mission. We have what we used to call the Burns site, but there's also a site at Iona Island as well, where the debris in the river is collected and then disposed of.

The second operation we have is the log salvage operations in the river and Howe Sound and Georgia strait. There are two separate operations, I believe, but I would like it if the minister could please explain the extent of the participation of his ministry in both of those areas and perhaps in terms of staff resources and in regulatory control and in the budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me deal with the shorter answer of the two. The member correctly identifies the fact that there is what is conventionally referred to as the Fraser River debris trap collecting logs, waste that accumulates. It's been in operation for some time now. Well, at the risk of being overly candid, in my three-year experience here I don't think a year has gone by where there hasn't been an issue around funding and where that funding is going to come from. The member has had some experience with that. Secondly, at the end of the exercise, happily, each year a contribution or sufficient funds are cobbled together from various sources to provide for the continued maintenance of that.

I'm told that this past year — is it the past year or the coming year? — '03-04, the fiscal year just ended, the ministry contributed $45,000 to the operation of the debris trap. My recollection — but I might be wildly wrong — is that it is an operation that is in the neighbourhood of $200,000 or thereabouts. I'll have to check on that for the member. There is a continued, ongoing contribution from the Forest Service to the debris trap.

I think the issue that flows from the operation of the debris trap and ties in, in part, to the second issue that the member raised relates to what use is made of the fibre that is collected at the debris trap. I have received submissions, informally and formally, that say some of that fibre could be used to secure better returns and more revenue for the operation of the trap. People have challenged me around their access to the fibre and the fact that it isn't merely waste, but there are some recoverable values there. I must confess today I'm not in a great position to engage in where those discussions may or may not be.

The second issue, however, is what becomes, on the coast, of the fibre logs that are found — the term that I still refer to — by the beachcombers who are out there salvaging timber in tidal waters and off beaches and in hidden coves — timber that has escaped from a log boom and that sort of thing. The member knows that in the 1950s — the late 1950s, I believe — a structure was set up as a result of concerns that existed around, to be blunt, whether or not all of that fibre was genuinely lost logs or logs that had gone free in a storm, versus stolen logs — whether people were stealing logs from log booms and then selling them back to the owner as salvaged timber.

The way that was addressed was the creation of an agency and the passage of legislation that empowered the Crown to create what is in effect, I think, a cooperative — or is referred to as something of a cooperative.

Hon. M. de Jong: Consortium would be a better term. I think that's correct — a consortium that operates what is referred to in the legislation as a deposit station, a station to which you can bring your salvaged logs or timber. In fact, there is one consortium. There are, I believe, two areas to which you can deposit your logs physically but one consortium. That has given rise in the past…. I will be a little bit careful, because I think there is lingering litigation around this point, but that has given rise to concerns around the absence of competition and whether or not fair prices are being provided for that timber or for those logs.

What I can tell the member — and he may or may not be aware of this — is that there is presently before government a proposal for the creation of a second station or a second agency to which logs that are salvaged on the coast could be sold. That proposal is being reviewed. I don't want to signal any bias, and I

haven't seen the proposal as yet, but I am philosophically, at least, drawn to the notion of competition in most endeavours. So I will be interested to see the proposal, to see the recommendation that emerges from the governmental review that is taking place. Quite frankly, I'm anxious that that take place sooner rather than later.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Thanks to the minister for that response. Indeed, I think we've really got two problems, as I outlined, and I appreciate your responding to both of them. Maybe we could just deal with the debris trap for a second. I'm concerned because of the amount of debris that is in the river. I take it that a lot of the sawmills and that sort of thing have what they call bags or receiving stations when the sawmill ends and things are disposed of and dumped in the river — that they're contained and then taken down to the debris site at Iona Island. That's the way it's supposed to work.

I guess my question to the minister is: what regulations are in effect in your ministries? What inspections take place? Are there fines in place for violations of that? I say this because the volume of debris appears to be increasing significantly. I don't know if it has anything to do with the prices or whatever, but there seems to be a lot more of that material. I'm talking sawmill debris as opposed to deadheads and log debris from log booms — particularly that other debris that's supposed to go to that Iona Island site and appears to find itself just floating in and out on the tide in the river and then, of course, clogging the arteries along Georgia strait as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. He has, I think happily, identified an issue that I am going to want to pursue further. The member refers to the relative volumes that are collected by the debris trap — what becomes of those volumes of fibre, how much is waste, how much is marketed, how much is used for what. I don't have comparative figures. In fact, for the debris trap I don't actually have any figures at my disposal. I know that 20,000 cubic metres of salvaged logs are processed through the Howe Sound receiving facility. That's a significant amount of fibre.

I think what I should endeavour to do on behalf of the member and with the member is obtain from the Fraser basin commission some additional data — I have to believe that it is readily available and probably within the ministry itself — as to what kinds of volumes have been collected out of the debris trap over the past five-year period and whether there is a trend up or down. If it is a trend down, and that is resulting in additional waste fibre finding its way into the shipping lanes and out into the straits, then we better have a look at that and find out whether there is something that can be done to address that.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Yeah, just on that one. I wasn't so concerned with the specific volumes and what happens to it. It's just the role of the ministry in ensuring that, particularly the sawmill operations up and down the river, their debris is in fact disposed of at the debris site as opposed to…. I believe most of them do what they call "bag it." They have a boom situation around the sawmills, and they put their debris in there maybe for a day, maybe for several days, until they have sufficient volume, and then they're supposed to barge it down to the river.

My question is: do we have a mechanism in either inspections or fines or something to make sure that operations are being carried out effectively to reduce the volume of material — the debris trap–type of material — that ends up in the river as opposed to saw logs and to see if we in fact have a role in that? I'm just not sure. If you're not able to answer that question, then if you could get back to me on that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. M. de Jong: We are canvassing the bank of legislation that governs the Ministry of Forests and what the Forest Service has responsibility for. At first blush, we can't think of anything that would vest authority for precisely the kind of thing that the member has alluded to — that is, inspection and enforcement of operations around a mill site along the Fraser River. So I'll start from that proposition, and if I'm wrong, someone either within the ministry or outside of the ministry watching this right now will be horrified by what I have just said.

But we'll take that as a starting position. If I'm wrong, we'll verify that. We'll verify it in any event. What occurs to me is that there is a navigable waters issue here and most certainly, perhaps, some fisheries or other environmental issues, but I can't, off the top of my head, identify a provision within either the Forest Act or the Forest and Range Practices Act that would apply to the scenario the member has pointed out. But we'll endeavour to find out what regulatory provisions are to be applied to address the situation the member has alluded to and probably sees and has a very good vantage point from his position on the banks of the river further down-river.

G. Halsey-Brandt: It's really my final question, although there may be another one on it depending on where we go with it. It's really around the log salvors and, again, Georgia strait, Howe Sound and the river. This is what I might think, in my own naïve way, as merchantable timber, logs — some of which are deadheads, but others have broken loose from booms from one situation or the other.

I guess I find the whole situation a wee bit bizarre. For example, if I have a bunch of material in my minivan from my house that I'm going to take to a garage sale, and I drive down the street and half of it falls out the back because I accelerated too much, and I just merrily went on my way, usually a city or somebody would have to come along and clean it up. I would expect a bill for that. You just don't dump stuff or lose stuff in the middle of the street or, in fact, the middle of the river. It doesn't seem to work like that, I guess.

The word was around the consortium, and perhaps it's time to revisit this whole thing. It has got considerably worse recently. Particularly, the North Fraser Harbour Commission had a much larger boat, and they would pick up deadheads. They would help. Now they're just down to a little 18-footer. They don't even pick them up anymore. I think the salvors get something like a dollar for a deadhead. With the price of gas, it's not worth picking them up. The barge only comes every few months to actually collect them from them, so there's really not much point in the exercise.

When you have a consortium that sort of sets the price and the rules and you have another group picking up the logs, as I think you mentioned earlier in your response, the market forces really don't seem to be at work in terms of making sure that that timber gets back into the supply system again and is utilized properly. As I said, this looks after the environment in the river in terms of shipping and all that sort of thing.

I would assume that your ministry — and this is my question — has a role in determining, perhaps, the pricing of the material or ensuring that the people who are doing the log boom business have a responsibility, in fact, to clean those up. Either they pay for it themselves, or if they have independent salvors — as you called them earlier; I often call them beachcombers — doing it, they in fact get fair compensation, so that the system is going to work for us.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer — and again, if I'm wrong, I will relay this immediately to the member — is that there is, in my recollection, a responsibility that accrues to the ministry. That responsibility has been discharged historically by virtue of a regulation that sets the methodology by which the price for salvaged logs is calculated. The consortia that are in place now are charged with reimbursing the salvager on the basis of a certain formula. Now, that formula, I can tell the member, has been the subject of some review — in fact, as I said earlier, some litigation. I think some of that litigation is ongoing before the federal courts.

That's the first thing. The member has clearly identified an area where there is provincial responsibility. We are, as part of the discussion around the possible designation of a second station or second consortium or second agency, certainly having to also examine the methodology or formula by which compensation is calculated. That is the first thing.

Here's the part about this that I find somewhat more vexing. The member correctly referred to two different circumstances. If you have a merchantable log that has some value, there will be — assuming the person salvaging that log can recoup their costs — interest in picking it up, getting it off the beach, getting it out of the waterways. There may be an issue about how that compensation is calculated, and that is in the process of being examined.

What is more difficult to contemplate in a structure that seeks to reward the person who is recovering the salvaged timber and logs is the second kind of product that the member referred to, which is the deadhead or stump that has no merchantable value. Where is the incentive, if there is any, to effect that cleanup? Can the two co-exist, or is access to one type of fibre a prerequisite for access to the other? I have more questions in my mind as a result of this conversation than I have answers for, except to say to the member that as a result of the application having been made for the second agency to get involved, it has precipitated a discussion and an evaluation of all of those questions.

D. Hayer: Through the Chair to the minister. First of all, I want to thank you for visiting my constituency, especially S&R Sawmills, which is run by Chick and Marilyn Stewart. They have almost 500 people working there in the mills they have.

The second-largest mill I have in my area is Teal Cedar Products Ltd., which is run by Tom and Dick Jones. The minister knows them. These are the gentlemen who have invested almost $75 million over the year 2003-04 in the sawmill, which is really good. I really appreciate it, and my constituents really appreciate the investment they're putting in Surrey-Tynehead. It creates a lot of extra jobs. I look forward to the minister sometime coming and touring there in the expanded mill, too, in the future.

Some of the questions were asked by my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. She has asked them, but there are a couple of other ones that I just wanted to say. Since we don't have too much time, I will ask the questions at one time, and then you can try to respond to them.

One of them is that when you're looking at the U.S. dispute over the quota system, we want to make sure — my constituents are looking at all the primaries, even though they have not been sending the wood to the States before — that they have access to the wood, so they can have their part of the quota or have open markets so that they can still send the wood there.

A second part is that some of my constituents are always wondering: are we selling more of our logs to the States and other parts now because of the dispute with the United States, or is it fairly stable with about the same number as before? I know my colleagues from up north always like to have some logs going; otherwise the whole town will be shut down. We have to have a certain amount of our logs going. That's another part.

A third part is talking about looking at the market. One of the markets we're looking at is India. One of my constituents has sent some pine beetle–infected wood, which is kiln-dried, to India. But lately India is trying to say it doesn't want kiln-dried, pine beetle–infected wood because that can cause problems. We all know it does not, because it's kiln-dried, so all the bugs are dead. It's not going to cause any problems there. Is the minister looking into that? I have sent information to the minister's office and to the Premier's office on that.

Otherwise, I'm really happy to see that we as a team and also the Premier and the ministers are looking at new markets in Asia and in other parts, so we can have our fair share of the wood going to other parts. We can't rely on the United States alone, even

though we have to make sure we have fair access to the United States since they're our main partner right now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this is also a member who has an acute understanding for the fact that although few would believe Surrey is located in the heart of forest land in British Columbia, it is a community and an economy very much tied to the performance of the forest industry. He has mentioned two very significant participants in that industry and the processing facilities they have.

Insofar as the S&R Sawmills, on the occasion we visited, the proprietor of that company and those mills, Mr. Stewart, provided me and the member with copies of a videotape. It's a unique operation. When I brought the tape home and my father saw it, I was surprised to learn that he, too, had worked at S&R Sawmills for Mr. Stewart in his capacity as an electrical contractor some years previous — so, very important components of life in Surrey-Tynehead and the Surrey area.

I want the member to know that this notion of a quota that he referred to as being embedded in any kind of a trade negotiation was certainly a feature of the offer that we saw arrive from the U.S. prior to Christmas. I hope no one is surprised to hear me say that I am very reluctant to embark upon a discussion or a negotiation that would lead to a settlement built around a quota for one simple reason. If someone in this chamber or someone in this province or someone anywhere can come to me with a formula or methodology by which quota can be assigned on a fair and equitable basis to the satisfaction of all of the participants, then you may make a convert of me. But I haven't seen it, I haven't heard it, and I don't believe it can be done.

Now, having said that, notwithstanding my biases it certainly was a part of the proposal that came north. What remains to be seen is whether or not our position and the negotiations we undertake are such as we can move off of that kind of construct for a negotiated settlement.

The member raises a good point. A quota system built around calculations of historical shipments into a particular market is not very helpful for any operation that has no history of shipments into that market. Whether it is the facility that the member referred to, the newer facility; whether it is a first nation becoming involved, one of the over 40 first nations that we have negotiated forestry agreements with in the past six months; whether it is Carrier Cheslatta in the central part of British Columbia, who have a tremendously successful operation going but for whom there is, as well, little in the way of history of shipments out of their new facility into the U.S. — those are all examples of operations that would be prejudiced, quite frankly, in a conventional, quota-based negotiated settlement.

We have to remain alive to that, and we should all understand this. If there is to be a settlement in this and if it is to be built around any notion of a quota allocation, nobody will get the quota they think they need or deserve. That is just the reality, and it's one of the reasons I — like the member, I think — remain skeptical about the wisdom of proceeding down that path.

The member also spoke about markets and the pine beetle infestation. It's a very timely question. The ministry is now through our officials, including officials within the market outreach network, working to address some of the concerns. We are confronted by a proliferation of fibre from a particular part of B.C., an incredibly large part of B.C. in the central interior infested by the pine beetle. What we have to make sure our customers understand is that notwithstanding the fact that the beetle leaves a blue residue on the wood, the wood is structurally sound.

I was with the machine stress-rated lumber association, who actually rate individual 2-by-4s and provide a guarantee of their strength and resiliency, their structural strength. Pine beetle wood is perfect for that product. What we have to do is make sure that our customers and prospective customers understand that. Here's where the member comes in, because his prowess as a salesman is legendary not just in this chamber but around Surrey-Tynehead and around the Fraser Valley.

We don't have to just convince people that blue-stained, denim lumber — whatever you want to call it; timber that is infested by the beetle — has sound structural qualities. We've got to convince them that blue stain represents a value-added component to the timber, that there is a decorative element to the timber and that they want to buy it because it is unique. It won't be around forever, folks. You better act now and get your hands on this sooner rather than later, because what are you going to say when all of your friends and neighbours have got blue-stained denim timber and you're the only one in the neighbourhood that doesn't? That is the kind of quality and initiative and enthusiasm this member can bring to that discussion and can bring to that sales component in India and right around the world.

I know he is going to do it, and while he is doing that I'm going to suggest that we rise, report progress and seek leave or, alternatively, just recess.

B. Belsey: I have a few questions for the minister. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions.

As a participant in the small-scale salvage program I travelled around my riding quite extensively and helped put that report together, which I think shared an awful lot of the points of view of those in the communities that I represent who scratch out a living from small-scale salvage. I understand there was funding set aside in the budget. I'm wondering where the ministry is with implementing parts or all or whatever portion of the small-scale salvage report — that he is planning to do that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should say first and foremost that this member comes from a region within the province that

has certainly had its share of ups and downs as it relates to the forest sector, yet through it all has maintained, as the member does, a healthy sense of optimism about what is possible if we can properly realign our policies and properly realign the implementation operationalization of forest management policy in the province to help generate the kind of activity that should logically follow in a part of B.C. that is blessed with an abundant fibre supply — albeit a different kind of fibre and, in some cases, a fibre that has different and differing merchantable qualities. I will offer this observation to the member, and he may differ with me or not. He should, as I know he does, feel no hesitation in doing so.

There are two things that I think offend the sensitivity of British Columbians when it comes to forestry more than anything. One is the export of unprocessed timber. The irony is that the member comes from a part of the province where we actually did something fairly extraordinary several years ago — that is, instituted an order-in-council that institutionalizes an allowable amount of export. We have done that not because we want to, not because this member is thrilled any more than anyone else about the notion of exported logs, but because that is the price we are presently paying to generate any kind of economic activity. That's one thing that drives British Columbians around the bend.

The other is waste. This goes to the issue of salvage and the notion that there would be timber in the woods that is left behind that rots, is burned or the value of which is otherwise not recouped and put to work in operations or by people that can turn that fibre into something of merchantable quality — recoup some value and put some people to work in the process. That describes in general terms what many of the salvage workers do.

I should say this because my colleague the Minister for Forestry Operations is here, and he may wish, in a moment, to add to the exchange that is taking place here. The challenge we face is to try and provide a mechanism by which more of that salvage timber can be recouped and do that in a way that is economically viable for the salvagers and for the Crown. In the past that has been an issue.

The member generously and correctly identifies the fact that because of the work that he did on a committee chaired by the now Minister of State for Mining, a series of recommendations arose. It was done because members like him, the member for Cariboo North and others said: "We're not getting the job done. The structure that is in place isn't achieving its stated purpose."

They've come up with a series of recommendations and were able, at a time when resources are very scarce, to convince government as a whole of the need to redeploy some resources, which is a big word — like chocolate milk shake — that we use when we don't want to say money, because in this case the money translates into the personnel that we need. That's what we mean by resources.

He and his committee members were able to convince the government to redeploy significant dollars into this. Now, we should be realistic about what that means. That doesn't represent a sudden windfall. It means we're in a position to retool the salvage program, have some of the resources necessary to give effect to the recommendations, and we're in the process of doing that. Some of those recommendations relate to new delivery models. An example is the community-based salvage licence. We're actually in the midst of awarding one of those salvage non-replaceable forest licences, or SNRFLs as they're referred to.

The bottom line is more effectively, more quickly and more immediately delivering access to that fibre. We are on the leading edge of doing that. When I say leading edge, I don't mean to falsely…. We're doing some new things, but we're at the outset of that process, and we have to hurry because people are justifiably impatient. They have the expertise, and they want to get out there.

Here's the qualifier. My colleague may have something to add to this. People have got to realize that they've got to do this competitively. The mere fact that someone's got a pickup truck and a come-along and a chainsaw doesn't automatically qualify them as an effective salvage operator. And they have to engage in this activity in an environmentally responsible way.

Part of our overall structure here is to ensure that all of those objectives are met, that access to that fibre is provided — provided more readily than it has been in the past — and also to ensure that people who participate in this have some reasonable prospects of succeeding and do it in a way that recognizes the limitations that exist around personnel and resources within the Forest Service.

That's probably a good place to start. As I say, the Minister of State for Forestry Operations is engaged in a specific project around this, so it may be that it is appropriate for him to involve himself in this exchange also.

Thank you, minister. I'm heartened by your comments regarding the raw log export. It's an important part for anybody living in the Pacific Northwest. A lot of people have certainly been challenged with trying to make a living. You know, if we eliminated the export of raw logs, that would be devastating for a number of people. Whether you're logging, whether you're driving that truck, whether you're scaling, whether you're a boom-boat operator or a longshoreman, there are families that depend on our forests. We certainly have ample fibre in the north, and if we can cut some of that fibre and export it, then I think that's healthy for northern communities.

I get the concern that those maybe living down south have a bit different concept of trees and the importance of trees. They're important to all of us living around this province, but to many it's a paycheque. It's food on the table. To some it's the viewscape and the aesthetic value. There is maybe a bit of a disconnect there, and I appreciate the support from the ministry.

With regards to small-scale salvage, I think that, too, is very important to rural British Columbia — certainly the communities I represent. The fact is that if you take a look at the North Coast riding, there is not a single major contractor who has an office — well, there might be one — in the north. For the most part, the offices are down south. They move into the area — I think there are two, sorry — they go in, they cut those logs, and they move out. They bring floating camps in, they bring their fuel, and they bring their supplies. That makes it pretty difficult for those who are living in the area wishing that they could participate in the removal of that fibre and benefit in the communities. So small-scale salvage is important. The small-scale salvager — he lives locally, he works locally, he hires locally, and he spends locally, so I go to bat for these guys as often as I possibly can.

In the small-scale salvage program, you mentioned something about competitive — that it must be competitive. Certainly in the past the small-scale salvager went out and did his own cruising. He identified fibre. He went in and made out an application to seek a permit. He was maybe successful at getting that permit and went out and recovered that fibre. The comment about competitive…. I'd like to know, and I'm sure the small-scale salvage fellows would like to know…. Any new model that we move to — is that still going to be the case? Are they going to be able to identify fibre in our forests and again come back to the district office and look for a permit and lay claim to that timber — maybe down, maybe dead?

Hon. R. Harris: Actually, the member talked about a lot of things that I think really do resonate with local communities, especially at the beginning when you start to talk a lot about the disconnect that communities are having with the timber around them. I want to talk about that first, because I'm really quite pleased with the direction that I think we've taken in the revitalization around looking at all sorts of new tenure opportunities. Those new tenure opportunities consistently fall into the area of community-based tenure opportunities.

I was in Prince Rupert a week and a half ago talking to your council around community forest licence, which in fact is exactly a community-based tenure. The minister has already referred to other types of tenure opportunities that are in the salvage side, including community salvage licences and what has been referred to as SNRFLs.

Even when you look at what we're doing around first nations and the first nations forestry agreements we're assigning and really a lot up and down the coast…. These also are community-based operators that in fact start to put in very real terms — not in some artificially legislated philosophy but in real terms — control of timber that surrounds communities like his and the ones I represent in the hands of people that live and hire local and support local businesses. I think that really is an important aspect of the changes in tenure.

Around the salvage specifically, a commitment made in the throne speech was that we were going to increase the ability to direct-award from 500 cubic metres back to 2,000, which I think is significant. We've also said — and one of the things when the minister was speaking regarding some of the changes around salvage — we're bringing in a new professional model of applying. Certainly one of the things I've heard, and I suspect you have too, is that the time it takes between when a salvage operator actually goes out and searches and takes the time to go and find an area he wants to work in and then starts to go through the process…. As the minister referred to, the resources in the ministry to continue to do that in exactly the same way don't provide for any kind of consistency of fibre to the salvage operator or any consistency of time frame.

One of the key recommendations that came out of the task force report was that as a ministry, we look at a new way of involving professionals in a professional application model that allows salvagers to do exactly what they're doing today — go out and locate on the ground those areas they're looking for, get a package from the local ministry office that they could then take to the appropriate professional and upon completion bring it back in. We can process those requests in a manner that works for them.

I guess the short answer to your question is yes, we are going to maintain that form of model. It has been called search and find. That's going to still exist. We're actually going to enhance it in a couple of ways. We're increasing the size that people can look at, but at the same time we're putting in a professional model that I think will really address the concerns they've had on timeliness.

The reason the 500 is rather important, quite candidly, is that 500 cubic metres in a place like Lytton could be eight or nine hectares; whereas on the Queen Charlottes, where there is a valuable fibre basket, it could be less than a hectare. We needed to create flexibility and range there.

We are moving to community-based tenures. Those are the things that put the tools in the hands of communities that actually deal a lot with some of your initial comments. We are going to maintain that ability for salvage operators to get out there. We are changing the size of the claim they can look at, and at the same time we're in the process of developing — because it is not completed yet but will be this year — a process that involves the professionals in a manner that moves that application process through a lot quicker.

B. Belsey: The comment about approvals…. That certainly is an issue we heard often as we travelled, with the small-scale salvage approvals. Some were approved in weeks, some took months, some in fact took years — some, several years — and some never heard back in applications for approvals. It has been a problem. It is an area that was addressed in the small-scale salvage report. I'm pleased that the ministry is working to maybe standardize or shorten the approval times.

I have a concern just with the comment about the 500 cubic metres. It seems to me that there are small-

scale salvage people out there — and I know in fact there are — who are not looking for 500 cubic metres, who may be wanting to go into an area to do beach salvage, who may just want to pick through an area that has been already harvested. How do we assure those people that they are still going to be able to work within the same kind of model that we're currently working in today?

Hon. R. Harris: Maybe just a little clarification from me on the 500. The changes we're going to make to the standards in terms of what salvage applications can come for is moving from 500 cubic metres to 2,000. Those aren't minimums; those are the maximums. Certainly, in terms of the marine salvage operator — and I'm familiar with a lot of those guys actually, spending a fair bit of time in the Charlottes myself — we're still in the process of continuing to develop marine salvage policies on how we're going to move that forward. There are certainly no minimums in terms of what they can apply for. The shift from 500 to 2,000 really identifies the maximums.

B. Belsey: It's good that you are working with some of the salvage. Certainly, marine salvage is an area that I've heard about in the last little while. As you work through your dealings with marine salvage, I would like you to consider the fact of some of the inconsistencies with the industry.

A current problem that I received an e-mail on the other day was regarding root bucks. Some areas you could go in and get maybe two or three of them, where if you go to another area, you could get so many out. But before he could get a permit to take another one out, they wanted things scaled. So in the central coast where you might have to fly a scaler in to scale a root buck or some of the wood you have before you can get more, it's an expensive proposition — anywhere from $7 to $1,000 to bring somebody in to scale. You can go to other districts, and that's not the requirement. So hopefully, we can work through some of those situations. I can get you more detail on that at a later date.

I'd like to ask a question on the — I think I have the term — Coast Sustainability Trust or Coast Sustainability Trust fund. I don't know if I asked this question before, but if not, I'm going to ask it again. Maybe I'll get the same answer; that could happen. My concern is the LRMP process that was done — in early 2000, I think it was — and the impact it had on communities. We seem to have considered companies that may have been displaced by an LRMP process. We considered workers — loggers — displaced, but communities have been severely impacted.

I know some of these communities have been looking to get some assistance through that fund. They've been told that, well, their application doesn't fit in. I'd like to know if, in fact, it is just industry and just workers. If you can answer that for me, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm not sure this is a satisfactory answer. Given the preface to the member's remarks, undoubtedly it is not. My recollection of the specific terms of the trust as it was set up, established some time ago, is that whilst it recognizes the cost that those land use decisions or that land use planning decision would visit or does visit upon workers, employees, contractors — and therefore, by extension, the communities that those individuals work, reside, live in — it affords standing only to employees and contractors to access the trust provisions and does not afford standing to communities themselves.

Now, the observation might follow from the member, and he has already alluded to this. The impacts associated with the land use planning decision do visit upon those communities. I will not quarrel with that. Yet it would serve no purpose for me to stand here and suggest that there is an avenue for access to the trust funds that simply does not exist. It does not contemplate application being made, to the best of my recollection, by the community. It contemplates access to those funds by the individuals or by the contractors so impacted.

B. Belsey: Some of the land use management decisions, certainly in the central coast, have had far-reaching effects. I guess the difficulty for, say, a community like Bella Coola or Hagensborg or even the Central Coast regional district, which has to represent these communities…. The impact on them is pretty horrendous in that the company can move out — and it has pulled out; it has gone someplace else — and the employees have moved out and gone someplace else.

What you're left with is a community that still tries to maintain the roads. It still tries to maintain the parks; it still tries to maintain the dump; it still tries to maintain the schools. They're certainly finding it fairly difficult to manage as a result of what went on in the past.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there's nothing complicated about that question. I just don't have an answer. I will have to get the answer, and we'll try to get it while these proceedings are ongoing so the member can have the benefit of the answer on the record, but that should be readily available. I apologize for not having it at our disposal here today.

The member made specific reference to one of the communities located in the area he has representative responsibility for: Bella Coola. I just wanted to seize on that example because the Minister for Forestry Operations and I were this past weekend at a conference of communities interested in the establishment of community forests. Bella Coola was represented there.

I should say, and I hope this member will convey to them our collective — on the part of my colleague and I — positive impression of the inventiveness they are

bringing to the discussion around the establishment of a community forest…. I wish to emphasize that does not mean we are today announcing that a community forest has been established for Bella Coola, but we are working in that direction. They will know of the three-hour or two-and-a-half-hour opportunity we had Friday night to talk through how we are going to establish some priorities, how we are going to find the fibre.

Now that I'm on this tangent, I will point out, and hope the member will convey, that these are not limitless opportunities. The volumes are finite. Through the reallocation process, we have identified somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300,000 cubic metres, and the point that across the province as a way…. The intention is to double the program. But as we pointed out to one community who thought their community forest tenure should be 300,000 cubic metres, the answer to whether that was doable was an emphatic yes, if we were satisfied with creating one additional community forest tenure — the point being that there is a finite amount.

But the representatives from Bella Coola who have taken to heart the notion, who have recognized the vulnerability the member alluded to — that they have felt over the past number of years — are saying: "Look, we'd like to take a little more direct control over our own destiny as it relates to the management of the resource that surrounds us."

That is a sentiment that I and I think the government, and my colleague the Minister for Forestry Operations agree with, endorse and in the weeks and months ahead will endeavour to give effect to communities like Bella Coola.

B. Belsey: I'm pleased you had the opportunity to meet with the folks from Bella Coola, because I think they have done an incredible job in preparing an application. Although it is still the early stages, both the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal communities have come together in their application. They see the benefit of working together, the benefit of both of them being able to bring fibre together and to set up and operate a community forest licence that will benefit everybody living in the valley. Thank you for taking the time to talk to them. They are hard-working people that have certainly faced some challenges in the last four or five years in that general area, but I know that they're collectively working hard to get that behind them and to turn that community around and build.

My next question has to do with eco-based management. Certainly through the Bella Coola valley, the central coast LRMP and the north coast LRMP, they're looking at eco-based management, so I have a few questions regarding that. If those two regions move toward eco-based management, it's my understanding that's not recognized in the Forest Practices Code. Is there an intention to bring this into the code? Do you have any idea how this will move forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has correctly identified an issue that is of continuing significance and consequence. I would point out, and I know the member is aware of this, that we have now squarely moved into the regulatory realm determined by the Forest and Range Practices Act. We are establishing management objectives for a number of different areas, including things like wildlife management, habitat species, water quality — the whole series enumerated in that legislation.

That does not divorce the operation of those regulatory provisions from a broader land use planning process that is ongoing. I know that in the past, the member has had discussions about that with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. He has had those discussions. They continue to co-exist, and the point has been made that in the regime we find ourselves in now, following the amendments that have been made and the introduction of the Forest and Range Practices Act, completing the land use planning process remains at least as important, if not more important. I agree with that. I agree with that observation, and to the extent that the member has identified that as an issue, he is absolutely correct.

B. Belsey: I think I'd like to ask just a couple more questions. Some of the difficulties the forest community in my riding is faced with, with necessity now, where they deal with Chilliwack and the Queen Charlotte Islands…. Haida Gwaii deals with Chilliwack, and the central coast deals with Port McNeill.

Do we have any measure of efficiencies we have gained by doing that? Are there any numbers available that — I'm not going to say justify — are showing that these changes are working and giving the ministry the efficiencies they are looking for?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think if there was one aspect of the realignment that took place with respect to the establishment of the B.C. timber sales program that attracted a degree of attention, and when I would travel into the member's community or anywhere in the northwest including the area that my colleague the Minister for Forestry Operations comes from, there was curiosity — well, that might be a polite term — around the decision to vest administrative authority in the office in the Chilliwack part of the lower mainland. I suppose part of the answer, part of the response, relates back to something the member himself alluded to, which is the location of the majority of the contractors who operate in the area and whether there were administrative necessities that required location of the B.C. timber sales office in the area or whether, given the nature of the clientele being served, it would be both more efficient from a government standpoint and administratively beneficial from the customer's point of view to locate elsewhere.

I think the jury is still out. I don't want to suggest to the member that we are on the cusp or the threshold of the reconsideration that some of his constituents might be calling for. We do have to track whether or not we have realized the efficiencies that were used to justify

the decision in the first place, and part of that relates to feedback from the clientele, the harvesting community, the licensees themselves.

That's about as conclusive as I can be at this point. The member is relaying, as he often does in this chamber, an observation that at least several in his constituency involved in the forest sector have made known to me personally and, I suspect, the other forest minister as well.

B. Belsey: It certainly has been a challenge for communities in the north that have had to make these adjustments, and I'll maybe just describe a couple of them to put them on record. One is again with the small-scale salvage fellows that are in the central coast. Should they identify just a small bit of wood, maybe three or four trees that they could salvage and get a couple of thousand dollars? The necessity now to have somebody from Port McNeill come into the area and give them the permit or sign off on the permit to salvage that wood just doesn't very often happen. The cost for somebody out of Port McNeill to come into the area is relatively expensive and hard to justify when somebody's maybe only going to get a few thousand dollars' worth of wood. To that person who's salvaging that wood, that can make a big difference.

Some of the other concerns are those on the Queen Charlotte Islands that see contracts that lump together the Chilliwack forest district, the Squamish forest district and the Queen Charlotte Islands forest district. That certainly precludes those smaller contractors, whether they're in road building or silviculture or even the fellow — the only one in British Columbia — that makes the tree guards. He's having a heck of a time. He has a hard time when he's got to put a price in to send a tree guard from the north coast, Prince Rupert, and sticks off the Queen Charlotte Islands down to Chilliwack so that Chilliwack can send them back up again. He has to build that into his price. That makes it extremely difficult for him to compete.

Anyway, I really don't have any further questions. I certainly appreciate the minister and the minister of state for answering these questions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have part of the answer that I said I would get for the member, and I'm not sure I mentioned this as I intended to earlier in my response to him. The fund we were discussing earlier is in fact administered by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Our belief is that there are dollars remaining in that fund. I haven't yet been able to ascertain the actual amount.

B. Belsey: Did I understand it's managed through Sustainable Resource Management or managed through Forests?

J. MacPhail: Well, it's wonderful to be here — 7:30 on April 19. I note we are discussing incredibly important issues of national import moving from coast to coast. There was a hugely successful result of an easternmost group of people earlier this evening in Canada. They, of course, represent an important part of Canadian economy and culture. I'm hoping that British Columbia will do justice to the westernmost part of our culture and economy as well.

I also know that this discussion is as important as one could possibly have. Quorum is always important during these discussions, Mr. Chair, and I'm going to ensure that there is quorum during these discussions where those of us who care deeply will be present.

I also note that there are times when one could call a vote for these proceedings. I hope not to have to use that, because of course the usual opportunity for the opposition to call a vote during estimates is to reduce the minister's salary to $1, and I would hate to have to do that on an evening of such great importance. So just for that overview of comments about this wonderful evening, on which we are here discussing these important matters….

I'm going to start slow and build up to a crescendo, just in case anyone thinks that I'm not paying attention here, and I want to start with the service plan of the Ministry of Forests. Of course, we've had some interesting discussion amongst the government caucus members and the minister about how well the forest sector is doing right now. We've talked about commodity prices. I always find it interesting when a government takes credit for commodity prices. We are price-takers now, not price-makers, but we'll get into that and how one shouldn't ever rely on commodity prices to be a sustainable factor of an industry.

I want to talk about the mission of the Ministry of Forests. The mission of the Ministry of Forests is to "protect and manage our public forests for the sustained benefit of all British Columbians." I'm reading from the mission statement of the service plan '04-05, '06-07.

I want to ask the minister how he intends to ensure that the ministry mission is fulfilled given the fact that as I see it now, the mission has to be achieved with fully 30 percent fewer workers than in 2001-02.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: indeed, it is a special night for all sorts of reasons. I am ever mindful that there are British Columbians who are entertaining themselves by observing the proceedings in a sudden-death match between two hockey gladiators while we here suffer a slow, agonizing, tortuous exploration of a debate that will linger on into the evening — but I think a productive debate, actually, and a helpful debate.

The member poses a question about the ability of the ministry to realize the general objectives set out in the mission statement and presumably the more detailed objectives that exist through the service plan. I will be the first to admit that there are challenges involved in realizing those objectives. I will be the first to admit that the Forest Service is today, in a global sense,

dealing with — certainly from a monetary perspective and in terms of overall FTEs — smaller numbers than it once was.

That is in part a reflection, Mr. Chair, of the fact that the revenues we realize from forestry in this province have shrunk rather dramatically. I don't think there's a person in this House that is content or happy about that, but it is a reality — I think, by certain measures, by upwards of between $400 million to $600 million a year from not too many years ago. That has had an impact. It has had an impact on overall government operations, and it has had, obviously, a direct impact on the ministry itself.

Yet what we have tried to do is realign ourselves to find efficiencies. We have certainly effected changes in policy that have freed up personnel who heretofore had been engaged in certain types of activities and are now able to focus on other activities. The member and I, in the past, have had discussions around functions, important functions like compliance and enforcement. I cite that as an example where actually, although overall numbers in the Forest Service have declined, we have managed to garner a dedicated force of compliance and enforcement individuals whose activities now will be focused on the land base and will, we believe, achieve better results than what they had heretofore practising their trade largely behind a desk.

Now, I think, having only a month or two ago introduced the final regulatory package that goes with the Forest and Range Practices Act that was a product of debate in this House previously and much work, again, it's probably too early…. I wouldn't pretend to proclaim absolute victory. We'll have to watch this. I know the member will, and I know people within society will. The Forest Practices Board will.

That is one example of where we think we are marshalling resources in a way that makes sense. I might offer another example as it relates to, for example, forest rec sites and trails. The member will know that in past versions of this debate, I think, we had a discussion around the budget as it related to funds being dedicated to that very important function.

I'll say this to the member. We struck out to negotiate with community-based groups to secure partnership agreements to assist us to manage that all-important recreational infrastructure, and we achieved some successes. We did not, however, in the past year and a half secure agreements across the province everywhere where agreements were necessary to maintain that infrastructure, so we have restored some funding to the budget to address what British Columbians said to us was an absolute priority.

Again, different approaches depending on where we are in the province. In certain parts of the province, because of where those sites were located, because of the nature of the communities involved, we were very successful in acquiring partners. In other parts of the province it was more problematic. In many cases some of the recreational infrastructure was far more isolated, and it has become necessary to re-inject some money to ensure that infrastructure is maintained.

There are numerous examples. I'm sure we will get to many of them, but suffice to say I think our overall objective as reflected in or stated in the mission statement can be met. But as the member points out, there are challenges associated with meeting that objective in a world where the overall dollars being spent are less than they once were.

J. MacPhail: Just to note the minister's comments about this historic day, perhaps there would be a greater bonding or symbiotic relationship between what's happening inside this chamber and what's happening in the outside world if he would paint his face. And that face extends well, well beyond what one would normally think of in terms of the ability to paint.

Hon. M. de Jong: Like the member opposite, I, too, sport — dare I say? — tattoos reflecting my support for our hallowed club. Modesty and decency prevent me from revealing the nature and location of those tattoos, Mr. Chair.

I note that we have a Minister of State for Forestry Operations, and he has taken several questions here. Can the minister outline for us the breakdown in responsibilities between what is now called the Minister of State for Forestry Operations and the Minister of Forests responsibility in terms of what it means on the ground for companies, for workers and for communities?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member actually has posed the question in I think precisely the right way, because it is very much an on-the-ground issue. It delineates or is intended to delineate between the functions that ministers — and the Forests ministry is not that different from any of the other ministries…. Those policy formulation functions…. In the case of forestry, as the member knows, beyond the forest revitalization plan and all that entails — whether one agrees with it or not — there are negotiations with first nations and negotiations on an international level with the Americans.

I would not purport to speak for him, and the member will get an opportunity to put these questions to the Premier, who ultimately made the decision. But I believe it is safe to say that there was a desire on his part and, therefore, on the government's part to focus in on some on-the-ground delivery. What we have done internally is attempted to articulate where those areas are, and I will advise the member.

For example, special attention on the pine beetle front, and we can talk further about this. There are short-term issues there, and there are certainly long-term issues — to bring some focus to planning around how to continue to or try to slow down the spread of

the infestation; to salvage some of the value from the affected timber; and to develop a strategy that takes account of the fact that while for the moment we are seeing a significant uplift in the AAC, ten, 12 or 15 years from now it is going to be very much the opposite. Those are issues and strategies that need to be developed now.

To bring some focus to that, I think the member heard some of the discussion that took place during the earlier debate around small-scale salvage. That is another issue that the minister of state will address very much from an on-the-ground perspective to ensure that fibre is finding its way into the hands of those who can put it to work in a responsible way, an environmentally sustainable way, but to ensure that is happening quickly.

There is a timber sale program, and the member knows — though she has reservations about the strategy, and I understand that — that we are in the process of reallocating tenure and that about 4.2 million cubic metres of that tenure will be available for sale. That's not a particularly…. For all the benefits that we think and believe will accrue with that exercise, they won't accrue if there are delays in getting that timber into the marketplace and into the hands of people who can put it to work. So that is another area, operationally, that the minister of state will be focusing his attention on.

I'm pleased that the member posed the question in the way she did, because it is very much designed to be an on-the-ground operational function, and to that extent I think her final query related to how stakeholders will interact. Those with specific questions in any one of the areas I have just mentioned, or specific issues, will have as a point of entry into the executive council the Minister of State for Forestry Operations.

J. MacPhail: I was curious as to why the Minister of State for Forestry Operations now has sole responsibility for the B.C. timber sales program. The accountability letters given by the Premier to the Minister of Forests and to the Minister of State for Forestry Operations separates out the B.C. timber sales program to be now the sole responsibility of the Minister of State for Forestry Operations, yet it is the Minister of Forests' responsibility for the implementation of the forest revitalization plan. I fail to understand how you can separate the two.

The only way we are going to get the Americans to agree to any changed policy is to have the B.C. timber sales demonstrate that there's a market system in place now for timber sales. That is being done through the B.C. timber sales program. How does one reconcile the separation of those two into separate ministries at a time when stability, continuity, cohesion and continuation are of utmost importance?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I would begin by responding and alerting the member to the fact that jurisdictionally within the executive council, it is not actually two separate ministries. I think the member knows that, though her question is a valid one. It speaks to the issue of what is the actual delineation of authority. If I wasn't clear, we'll put this in terms that may or may not clarify what I am trying to convey.

In the service plan and in the documentation there are target levels set for the timber sale program — revenue targets, expenditure targets — and to the extent that they contribute to the overall picture for the Forest Service, the Minister of Forests is on the hook for meeting those objectives. What the minister of state has been asked to do specifically, and I'm trying to find the…. Here it is.

Forgive me. I should introduce the staff that are with me from the ministry. Mary Myers and Bob Friesen are with us today from the Forest Service.

I have the letter that I think the member was referring to and, I believe, the part of that letter she is referring to: "Encouraging an appropriate level of economic activity through the B.C. timber sales program is the objective set for the minister." That relates to what I tried clumsily to allude to earlier. It is one thing to acquire the volumes pursuant to the revitalization strategy, but if they are not marketed aggressively and effectively, that will defeat the purpose of the exercise. His energies in that realm will be spent ensuring and tracking that those volumes are actually getting out into the marketplace and into the hands of those who can use them.

I must say I also agree, however, with the point that the member made about the importance of, and our objective in, demonstrating that this is a genuinely market-based approach to the dispensing of timber. I agree with that, not just from the point of view of dealing with trade adversaries but also from the point of view of acquiring data that will accurately drive the timber pricing model that is now in place on the coast and that we hope to have in place in the interior.

J. MacPhail: I was curious to see the huge increase in the minister's office budget. I'm trying to figure out what more this minister is doing to justify a huge increase in his own budget. The minister's office, of course, is where we know the political operation of the minister is. It is his political staff. It doesn't involve any public servants. They're all OIC appointments.

I note the overall ministry has had a 30 percent overall cut since 2001-02. The Minister of Forests office — and this minister has occupied that position since his government's election — has increased by 93 percent. The minister's office increased by a full 57 percent from just last year. The minister's budget last year for '03-04 was $618,000 — I think a record itself in terms of size — and this year it is $968,000. Of course, when this minister took over from the previous government, the budget for the Minister of Forests office was $502,000. So he himself has increased that by 93 percent. What's happening inside that political office that requires almost a doubling of its funds?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is that the new figure, which — the member is right — is increased

over the year past, reflects the addition of the minister of state and the two personnel that compose his office. I feel compelled, however, to also say this. I'm not well-positioned today to account for it numerically or to quantify it in a way that would make for an effective argument, but I walked into the Forests minister's office just under three years ago, and that office has been host to Forests ministers for, I think, 25 or 30 years. When I got there, and I can't tell this chamber how it was accounted for numerically or budget-wise, there were 12 desks. There was room for 12 individuals, and they were occupied in support of the previous occupant.

There are now four desks. I'm not in a position to quarrel with the numbers. I can account for the change between last year and this year by virtue of the participation of the new Minister of State for Forestry Operations and the fact that those costs are reflected in that budget. But I also point out that in terms of the bodies occupying that office, it is about a third of what it once was.

J. MacPhail: Well, so what? The budget for the minister's office when this minister took over from the previous government was $500,000. It is now $968,000. Maybe you've got a lot of high-priced Liberal hacks in there — who knows? — but the budget has doubled. If the minister's trying to hint that there were people sitting at desks that were being paid out of other funds, no, absolutely not. I know that to be true. It is absolutely ridiculous for him…. This minister could have easily sought that information through estimates. He wasn't the critic at the time, but the critic could have easily sought that information, was unsuccessful to do that.

The minister has to take responsibility for the changes that his government has brought in, and that's to have the largest cabinet ever in the history of British Columbia. It expanded under the last shuffle, and this minister's own political budget has doubled since he took office. I guess that would be fine if there was bang for the buck. That's what I'm trying to find out — bang for the buck.

Here's what I think has happened, Mr. Chair, under this government since the Premier declared on January 17, 2003, to the Truck Loggers Association convention: "I'm here to tell you that this is the year for forestry in the province of British Columbia; this is the year we turn to the future." That was 15 months ago, and here is what it looks like now. This minister's budget — his political budget, partisan budget — has doubled in the meantime.

No softwood lumber agreement with the United States. I note that we're not talking much about the softwood lumber agreement, because the minister's probably relying on high commodity prices. Oops. We'll get to that in a moment. No softwood lumber agreement with the United States and a proposed agreement that hasn't got any legs whatsoever. Everyone is predicting that there is no likelihood of reaching an agreement that is good for B.C. until after November of 2004. No agreement, even though the Premier has been on two trips — count 'em, two trips — to Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States. No agreement despite the government getting rid of appurtenancy that required companies to mill timber in the area it was to cut so as to protect jobs and build communities.

The forest companies are riding high. I think today it was in the Globe that they predicted the forest companies are going to far exceed these quarter results, far exceed even the market — the street's estimates. The forest companies are doing fine, but what about the communities? There is no agreement, despite the government making it easier for companies to sell off their licences without penalties, and thereby they're allowing for even greater corporate concentration. We're seeing that. They're allowing for mill closures, and the vitality of communities is at risk.

There is no agreement despite the gutting of the Forest Practices Code and environmental protections. There's no agreement despite the proclaiming of all of B.C.'s non-protected lands as the working forest. That proclamation opened up Crown lands to increased commercial pressure and made habitat protection a thing of the past. Frankly, there is no agreement despite the government taking back 20 percent of licensed tenures in its attempt to create a competitive log market and stumpage rate. I will be happy to explore that 20 percent takeback and the progress to date on that with the Minister of Forests.

That is what's happened or not happened since the Premier declared the year 2003 the year of the forest. Yeah, it's great news that pulp is at $620 (U.S.) per metric ton. It is great that the SPF rates per thousand cubic metres is at $420-something (U.S.) today. That has absolutely nothing to do with this government or this province — nothing to do with it. We are price-takers; we are not price-makers.

Actually, for a government to sit back and say everything is doing well because the industry is allowed to make huge profits as a result of commodity price spikes is to say that we have given up on sustainability of the industry and that we're just going to ride, roll with the flow right now — ride the wave of high commodity prices. I hope that's not what's happening in this province. I hope that we are not sitting back and saying: "Oh, great. Isn't it great that commodity prices are so high?"

I asked the minister why his own political budget had doubled. I asked for the information on what the Minister of State for Forestry Operations does. I will develop my questions accordingly and ask specific questions of the minister of state on matters of the 20 percent takeback, because that was going to lead to the B.C. timber sales program working. He will be responsible for answering those questions, I assume. I don't see how you can separate out the two.

Sustainability. I have no idea where to go for asking questions about sustainability of the industry, but I

want to start by giving the minister a chance to tell me how he's going to talk to the public about the sustainability of the interest. He himself, the Minister of Forests, has noted that he intends to publish a state-of-the-forest report periodically. He's made that commitment several times.

So where are we at? Have I missed the first report, the state-of-the-forest report? If so, I would appreciate a copy.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, look, I understand the demands that are placed upon this member insofar as the debates that are taking place in this House and that she and her colleague endeavour to participate in, so this is not meant to be in any way a slight or to suggest that those demands aren't real. But sometimes people write scripts that are not entirely appropriate or applicable or accurate, because if the member had…. Again, I don't say this disrespectfully. If she'd heard what I said before the dinner hour in response to questions about just such things as pulp prices, I actually cautioned the government members against tying their hopes to commodity prices. So….

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says that she was listening. Then I am doubly baffled, because how the member took that commentary and now would attempt to turn it into an argument that the government is placing its hopes, dreams and aspirations in the hands of commodity prices that are set on an international stage, which I agree with…. I said quite the opposite. I said that the strength of our industry will develop if we can make proper structural changes, not rely upon the vagaries of the international marketplace, because in fact right now commodity prices are up. That's hardly a recipe for long-term stability and sustainability. If the member was looking for an argument from me on that point, I'm afraid she'll have to keep on looking, because that's the last argument I would make in this place.

We may have differences about the foundation upon which you build a solid and sustainable forestry economy, but in exchanges with government members, I went to great lengths to point out that you don't do that merely by pointing to commodity prices that for the moment are very good. We hope they continue. We hope they continue to be very healthy, because it is certainly helpful.

I guess I feel compelled as well, Mr. Speaker, because the member is a very able debater in this chamber and effective at turning a coin of phrase and using terms like "political budget." Let me explain for the record what that political budget entails. It is the budget. It is the budget that funds the minister's office and, in this case, the minister of state's office. It includes a receptionist. It includes an administrative assistant who attends to things like scheduling. It includes an executive assistant and a ministerial assistant. I suppose, if we are going to attach labels, that I would have no hesitation to say those are two individuals that I, as minister, have a degree of confidence in politically — and, in the case of the minister of state, a receptionist and a ministerial assistant.

So shoot me. I'm guilty. That is the extent of the political budget, and if the member has any doubts about whether or not I accept responsibility for those expenditures, I certainly do. They are the expenditures that fund the operation of the minister's office, and they are my responsibility. These are always intriguing and fascinating jousting sessions, and the member is particularly good at them. But I hope we can get to the essence of the debate, which the member did partially allude to: how are we doing?

In the earlier exchanges I pointed out that I thought there were some extremely positive signs. Some of it, I said, was anecdotal. Some of it is beginning to be quantifiable. It is not the case all across the province. If you live in Port Alice right now, you are hardly comforted by the words of this minister or any other politician that things are turning around. If anything, there is a far more immediate challenge that those people are facing.

But in many other parts of the province, for the first time in a long, long time, the complaint I am getting is of a labour shortage. We can explore that. I, for my part, believe that we are seeing positive signs. I think it's far too premature to proclaim any kind of ultimate success, but when we see the scale of investment and see the scale of returned employment that is taking place in certain areas, I am at least heartened to see the trend reverse from what it was for far too long.

J. MacPhail: The minister tries to make like the minister's office is something new. He describes the minister's office that's been identical for 30 years, and his budget has doubled in that context, so it's the trend that's key. I was listening to the debate about commodity prices, and yes, the minister repeats sort of what he said to the government caucus members. But government caucus members nevertheless — and these are the members from forest-dependent communities, who should know better — took great comfort in the high commodity prices.

Methinks the minister is far too sensitive in that he thinks the criticism is individual. It's corporate — the criticism that I'm making to the members who should know better and still continue to revel in commodity prices as if British Columbia had anything to do with the setting of commodity prices. We did in the thirties and forties, but not anymore whatsoever.

My question was: where's the state-of-the-forest report that the minister has promised over several years? I'm sorry. That's an exaggeration. Two years.

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there is to be a state-of-the-forest report for fiscal year '03-04. It's not yet complete. I've not yet seen a first draft, but there will be a report for fiscal year '03-04 and, as well, one for '04-05.

J. MacPhail: All right. That's interesting that the minister hasn't seen it yet. I'm curious as to what the indicators that are in this report will be.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are, to the best of my recollection, six indicators. If the member will bear with me, I'll endeavour to get an accurate listing of what they are.

My recollection is that the six indicators relate to the same series of indicators set out in the service plan itself. I'm trying to verify that and confirm that that's the model we have adopted for the report we're discussing. I may need to do that between today and tomorrow.

J. MacPhail: I want to ask about one of those indicators in the service plan for '04-05 to '06-07. In the service plan they're called key outcome indicators, and one is listed as "Area of Provincial Forest Land in Millions of Hectares." That's a key outcome indicator. That's an indicator for "A Sustainable Forest Land Base." It was interesting to note that the figure remains constant at 47.3 million hectares for the years '03-04, '04-05, '05-06 and '06-07. That's four years. Does that mean that the 43.7 million hectares of areas of provincial forest land are constant and that the minister sees no change in the land base due to creation of parks or signing of treaties or anything to change that figure?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I am endeavouring to do is verify the figure, which I believe equates with the area presently contained within the provincial operational forest. The figure moving forward, given the consistency of that figure, clearly does not take into account — and I'll give the member an example — the possibility and the hoped-for possibility of a treaty settlement. To the extent that we are hopeful there will be achievement in that area, it is conceivable that that figure would need to change.

I think we need to at least start from the basis that we both agree on the initial figure. So I'm trying to verify that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I'm actually getting these figures directly from the minister's service plan, but feel free to confirm them. It's always interesting to see how things change from the time these are published till now.

I'm curious. I can't find this anywhere in any government documents. We used to calculate forest-based economic activity as an overall percentage of the GDP. Does the minister know what that percentage is currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that calculation is still done. It is in the neighbourhood, I believe, of 24 percent. The suspicion I always have with these figures is that the number I am quoting refers to one calculation and the figure the member is referring to — calculation — refers to something else.

I have certainly, in the past, referred to a percentage of GDP and quoted figures in the neighbourhood of 24 percent. I don't know if that's helpful to the member.

J. MacPhail: It would be surprising if it's true, but fair enough. It would be very surprising. I would like the minister, if he could, please…. I'm sure the Forest Service has that figure. It's certainly one that's necessary in order to promote the investing in British Columbia. I would appreciate that figure to be given to me, if possible. Of course, that's the basis upon which we see whether the state of forestry is actually enhancing British Columbia's economy, remaining static or declining.

I'm of the view that while we need to modernize our economy and have new industry rather than established industry expand…. Not rather than — we need new industry to expand. I also believe that we need established industry to grow and flourish as well, Mr. Chair.

What is the state of implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act in terms of assent and implementation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will recall, obviously, the debate that took place. The statute has been passed and the various amendments to the statute. More recently the regulations were introduced via OIC and are now in force. Through the early part of this year, the months of February and March, training was taking place — fairly extensive training on the part of Forest Service personnel and stakeholders.

We are beginning to see the first forest stewardship plans generated under the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act. We are, the member may recall, now in a period of time where licensees-operators have a choice between the forest stewardship plan regime as contemplated by the Forest and Range Practices Act and continuing to operate for a period of time under the old Forest Practices Code.

J. MacPhail: But what is the law? Is the law the transition law? The Forest and Range Practices Act — has it had royal assent?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, and if I'm missing…. It certainly has royal assent, and it is the law, but there are two parallel processes now that operators may choose to avail themselves of. The answer is yes, there has been royal assent, and it is in place.

J. MacPhail: How does the ministry operate? We had a discussion when this bill was being brought in. How does the ministry operate a two-track system? I'm curious to know in detail how the Ministry of Forests operates a two-track system with substantial cuts in staff.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will try to respect what I think was the intention of the question — to articulate in

We have licensees, obviously, and they have a choice. They can initiate the process that leads to their being approved for harvesting activity under the former regulatory regime, which is the Forest Practices Code, which sees the filing of a forest development plan and all of the work that entails. It is significant work within the confines of the Forest Service. Or now, over the last two months, licensees have the option of the Forest and Range Practices Act approach, which sees them developing the forest stewardship plan. It is significant to note that under that regime, far more of the preparatory work and planning work falls to the responsibility of the licensee.

Now, having said that, I don't want to suggest to the member that in the last four to six weeks, suddenly everyone has shifted from the previous regime to the new forest and range stewardship plan regime. Many of the licensees continue to operate on the strength of previous forest development plans and previous cutting permits that have been issued and are slowly moving into the development of the forest stewardship plan.

Is there a heavy work burden being imposed upon the Forest Service personnel in the interim and in the transition? Yeah, I think there is, and they are doing their best and struggling to meet those objectives. The training has taken place. That's helpful. There is a cultural shift involved in the change that, quite frankly, we have discussed in this House. Some people support it, and some do not. Over time we see the advantages associated with the new code, the new Forest and Range Practices Act, resulting in increased flexibility or reducing the burden that rests on those personnel now. It is a challenge in the transition, as it usually is.

J. MacPhail: I note under the resource summary from the service plan of the Ministry of Forests that, for instance, in the area of compliance and enforcement — which is a key area for determining the sustainability of our forest sector — the budget for '03-04 was $317 million for the Ministry of Forests for compliance and enforcement, and this year it's going to be $292 million. So while we have a transition going on with parallel systems being run, either under the Forest Practices Code or under the Forest and Range Practices Act, there's actually a reduction of $26 million — almost a 10 percent reduction in compliance and enforcement.

Perhaps the minister could tell us how many licensees — companies — are operating under the old Forest Practices Code and how many are developing forest stewardship plans pursuant to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to do that, but I was trying to follow along with the figures that the member quoted. My initial reaction was that they were far too high for the C and E vote. Maybe the member will give me the figures again.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I was reading from the full-time-equivalents. There's been a reduction in compliance and enforcement from $30.048 million in '03-04 to $27.044 million in '04-05. Again, it's a 10 percent reduction. It's a reduction of $3 million. My question still stands, but with the proper figures.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is an issue that, in fairness to the member, she highlighted at the time we were debating the Forest and Range Practices Act. I don't think my answer is going to be appreciably different from what it was then. Under the former regime the duties that fell to compliance and enforcement officers were heavily laden on the administrative side, and it was a function of the statute they were operating under.

What we have sought to do — and we'll have to measure carefully in the year ahead — is create a structure within which we can have a dedicated C and E staff. Under the former regime we had a lot of part-time people. That doesn't answer entirely the question around the budget, but the people we do have in compliance and enforcement now are full-time individuals. We expect that and have actually charged them with spending far more time out on the land base tracking what is taking place on the land base.

We are confident that the objectives that we have set insofar as C and E…. And it's a big part of this new regime. In fact, one could say that if there is not an effective compliance and enforcement mechanism or division in place, then one's ability to speak confidently that the objectives of the legislation are being met is compromised. We think by virtue of the changes and the changes in duties that the act entails, these mean we can maintain that confidence. We've got to track it in the months ahead.

The second part of the question related to the number of licensees that have made the shift. Given that the regulations have been in force for a relatively short period of time…. I don't have the number, but I suspect it is modest. I think the correct question…. Licensees can make the shift at different times with respect to different licences and — especially the larger licensees — may transition into this over a gradual process. What I can say to the member is that by December '05 everyone needs to be operating on the basis of a forest stewardship plan, which is the regime in the new act.

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out, given the fact that this minister's budget for compliance and enforcement has been reduced by a real $3 million and that indeed there are 25 fewer full-time-equivalents working in that field…. The part-time versus full-time doesn't wash. There are 25 fewer full-time-equivalents in compliance and enforcement from last year to this year. We've got fewer full-time people operating with fewer resources, and we have a dual system. We have our compliance and enforcement officers who have to monitor either under the Forest Practices Code, which is heavily on the ground, or under the Forest and

Range Practices Act, which the minister may be correct in saying is where the licensees take a greater role. I'm trying to find out who's on what to see whether these 10 percent fewer resources in compliance and enforcement can in any way be effective, given those cuts.

Let me ask this, then. I'm going to go right to the minister's own compliance goals. It states that there will be effectiveness evaluations — the way those are described is "field evaluations of the Forest Practices Code and the Forest and Range Practices Act" — and that the effectiveness evaluations will be published three times a year. Two questions: will those effectiveness evaluations be made public, and what factors do the evaluations examine?

Hon. M. de Jong: The point I would make at the outset — I was reminded of this, and it is important to convey — is that we're talking, in essence, about a form of an audit process. What I want to try and distinguish here is that it's not an audit of the licensees but an audit of whether or not the Forest and Range Practices Act regulatory regime is actually delivering on the objectives that are laid out in the legislation as it relates to wildlife management, water quality, riparian zones — those issues.

To my mind, there will be — and there needs to be — a standard format by which that audit can take place. It will be public, but in saying that, I want to emphasize that what the member should not be anticipating is a public report that comments on the effectiveness of the licensee but an audit on the effectiveness of the legislative model itself.

With that, recognizing that across this great province there are people eager to turn the channel to other equally notable entertainment venues, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to standing order 25, a division on Motion 73 has been deferred until this evening. We will ring the division bells now and have that division.

Hon. members, the division is on Motion 73, which reads as follows: "Be it resolved that this House support the expansion and promotion of the B.C. cruise industry."

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, earlier today the Leader of the Opposition sought to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, that the government's failure to provide the public with facts about the B.C. Rail deal has led to a crisis in public confidence. She submitted that information had been received that a series of options extended the term of the contract beyond the stated length. The Government House Leader submitted that the options mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition were for the benefit of the government and, secondly, that an ordinary opportunity for debate existed.

Standing order 35 allows the appointed business of the House to be set aside in urgent circumstances. In numerous precedents, Speakers of this House have declined to set aside the business of the House where an ordinary parliamentary opportunity for debate existed. In the case at hand, the House has embarked on consideration of the estimates in Committee of Supply, and the relevant ministry has yet to be considered. Accordingly, an ordinary parliamentary opportunity exists.

Secondly, it appears that there is a disagreement between members as to the interpretation and meaning of the proposed options. Speakers in numerous precedents in this House have refused to apply standing order 35 for this reason also.

Accordingly, I am not prepared to set aside the business of the House under standing order 35.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

R. Stewart: I'd like to begin with a discussion about French immersion. I know that our government has moved toward expanding the range of options available to students by ensuring that school districts can offer a wide range of programming. I know that French immersion has been picked up in a great many school districts with enormous enthusiasm by parents. I wonder if the minister can advise us how the ministry views this and whether there are some specific actions that we have done or will be doing to ensure that the demand for French immersion programs in school districts can be met — particularly in school districts with shrinking enrolments, where they have perhaps limited ability to hire new teachers that have the capacity to teach French immersion.

Hon. T. Christensen: I should just take a quick moment to introduce the staff that I have here with me, for the record. I have Deputy Minister Emery Dosdall to my right. To my left is Keith Miller, director of funding. Behind me and to the right is Rick Davis, director of superintendent liaison, and behind me is Ruth Wittenburg, Assistant Deputy Minister of Management Services.

The member was asking in respect to French immersion. French immersion is perhaps the perfect example of the benefit of providing choice programs for students around the province. I know certainly from my own experience, from discussions with parents of children in French immersion and from discussions with teachers and school districts who are offering French immersion that those programs have, first and foremost, provided an option for students and, second, have benefited from very strong parent involvement.

One of the great benefits of choice programs is that if parents and students are specifically involved in coming to choose a particular type of school or type of program, there's a much greater chance that students are going to be very keen on the work they're doing and that parents are going to be integrally involved in supporting the students' school work. I think that's something that certainly French immersion has benefited from.

We have the benefit in the province of an increasing interest in French immersion, and that is a longstanding trend. What we're now seeing, as the ministry has gone in the direction of encouraging districts to offer more choice, is that where districts may have only offered early, mid or late French immersion, many districts are now looking at a range of options. I know in my own school district, 22 in Vernon, they have now added a late French immersion, which is something that parents had been calling for, for a long time, often because their children had perhaps missed the benefit of getting into early French immersion and it provided a second chance. There's also a mid-entry French immersion that's possible.

There have been past challenges around choice programs and French immersion, in particular, in finding teachers who are conversant in French and who have the French skills necessary to teach French immersion children. We are told from discussions with districts that actually the universities seem to be graduating more students that are capable of being French immersion teachers. We're seeing a positive trend there in terms of the ability to get the teaching staff necessary for French immersion to thrive.

Fully three-quarters of school districts now have French immersion of one sort or another. It's certainly something where I intend to continue to work with school districts. The provincial government will continue to work with the federal government in terms of supporting French immersion. I continue to work with the Canadian Parents for French in terms of some of the advice they can provide to me on how we can better ensure that French immersion is an option that is offered in all school districts throughout the province.

R. Stewart: On this issue, as we toured the province with the Select Standing Committee on Education…. I know as the minister — he then was just the member for Vernon — toured the province, there were a great many school districts that expressed the frustration that with declining enrolment came the inability to hire new teachers. The inability to hire new teachers meant that we were very limited in our ability to expand programming without being able to bring in teachers, for example, who were fluent in French. As a result, we may have had someone who was fluent in Spanish but didn't actually teach Spanish and taught German instead — or something.

To what extent can we, as a government, help school districts overcome the difficulties associated with the collective agreement that put in place seniority over the needed skills in addressing the hiring and staffing abilities of school districts?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, we want to ensure throughout the province, whether it's French immersion courses or other courses in other curriculum, that we are doing all we can to match the best teacher with the subject matter to be taught. That can from time to time be a challenge. Within the collective agreement that governs the relationship between teachers and school districts, school districts are not required to retain or to hire a teacher who's not qualified for the job.

I know that collective agreements and going through the process can be a challenge from time to

time. I have not, at least recently, heard a great deal of concern from school districts in that regard, but it's something that I would very much be prepared to discuss with them in my meetings with the BCTF. I think they, too, as educators, would agree that the goal has to be to match the right teacher with the right class.

R. Stewart: I want to move on now to the business operating companies that school districts are setting up in many cases. I have heard some concerns about the process of setting up a business corporation and about the challenges associated with that process. Some school districts seem to be finding that the process is onerous and that it creates challenges for them.

While I don't want to elaborate on the challenges, because I don't quite understand exactly all of the challenges that school districts are facing, I wonder if the minister can tell us how the ministry is liaising with school districts in establishing that this process for setting up business companies — and the entire concept of business companies — is going to benefit from constant feedback between the ministry and school boards as well as from good business practices rather than have its hands tied with bureaucracies.

Hon. T. Christensen: The legislative changes that enabled school districts to set up business corporations were undertaken at the request of school districts and from a view, from the ministry standpoint, that it was prudent to allow school districts to manage their affairs in a manner that provided protection from liability — for example, where they were offering services to offshore students. What we don't want is for school districts, while they are perhaps undertaking something that might be more of a separate business, to be putting at risk the public assets of the school district. That was the genesis of the ability to incorporate.

The ministry's role has been one of enabling, in terms of the legislation. The role has not been one of expressly having a program to encourage districts to do that. What we will do in our general support to districts is…. If we encounter districts that have some concerns around the ability to incorporate, we try to connect them with districts that have already had some success in doing it so that they can learn from one another the opportunities that are there and the potential pitfalls in terms of the process.

It's not necessarily a simple thing to simply go ahead and do it. But for districts that are involved in various business activities, certainly it's a prudent step forward to ensure they are protecting the assets they're entrusted with by the taxpayers.

R. Stewart: I have one more question, and it relates to the teaching profession. I've always had tremendous respect for teachers. I think the teaching profession is one of the most important professions that affect our daily lives. With four children in our K-to-12 school system, I've had a lot of interaction with teachers. I've had a lot of enjoyable interactions, and I've also had a lot of interactions that involved some of the challenges that teachers face in their classrooms.

I find myself sitting in this House wondering how we as a government can recognize more fully and more often the tremendous value of the teaching profession and how we can, in particular, recognize the outstanding teachers that each of us knows about.

I have had a chance in these past few weeks to chat with various teachers that teach my children. I have met with some outstanding professionalism in those discussions, and I wonder how, as a government, we can embrace that professionalism, how we can support it and how we can continue to encourage the professionalism of the truly professional teachers that teach our children across this province.

Hon. T. Christensen: I want to support fully the comments that the member has made in terms of the professionalism of teachers throughout British Columbia and the incredible work they're doing. One of the greatest pleasures I've had over the course of this last year — now that I have a son who's in the education system and even more so as I've been minister for the last number of weeks — is the opportunity to get into schools around the province, in districts around the province, and see the incredible work that teachers are doing right on that front line where they meet students every day.

I think one of the things that all of us need to do…. Certainly, I'm trying to do it as minister, but all of us as members of the Legislature and community members and parents need to acknowledge and talk about the great work that is happening in our schools around the province: the dedication that teachers are showing to the work they do, the value they are providing and the great experience they are providing for our students. I think that, more than anything, will go a long way to really spreading what I think is a very good-news story about the state of public education in the province.

We also are looking at ways that we can more formally acknowledge excellence in teaching. We are looking at the concept of excellence awards for teaching and working on that concept with our education partner groups to see how that could be structured. But our ability to recognize a few outstanding teachers in the province should in no way take away from the great work being done on a day-to-day basis.

For example, just in the last couple of weeks I had an opportunity to attend a literacy forum in the New Westminster school district, where the district was hosting a forum in the evening for parents. They had a turnout of almost a thousand people to look at literacy. They had a group of teachers there who were committing their own time in the evening, like many teachers do, to support this literacy work with parents, all of whom were very excited about the work they were doing and the opportunity to be involved in some very innovative literacy initiatives going on in that district, as there are in many districts around the province.

Equally, this morning I had an opportunity to open the B.C. Ed Online conference in Vancouver — again, a

roomful of almost 500 teachers and others directly interested in the education system, all of whom were looking at how they can partner together between the various school districts that are looking at the learning opportunities that are currently there but that are emerging, as well, in combining or using technology as a support to learning throughout the province.

There is just incredible vision and forethought going into a number of these very important emerging areas or even traditional areas of learning in the province. In almost every respect the leaders who are pushing that come from the ground up and are teachers in our classrooms who have recognized where they can do something new in literacy, do something new in numeracy or use technology to better meet the needs of their students and better prepare their students for life in what is an increasingly complex world. Certainly, my great congratulations go to those teachers around the province that are working so hard to do that.

R. Stewart: I thank the minister for his comments. There was one comment in particular. The minister mentioned that many teachers spend evenings and weekends working at their profession, and I would argue that, in fact, almost all of them do. My wife is a teacher, and there have been many evenings right through till midnight where the report cards or the assignments she's marking are still being marked, and the lesson plan for the next day is still being prepared. It is a tremendously important and dedicated profession, and it involves more than just the time at school.

I also wanted to comment about…. I had the opportunity, being that I am walking more slowly these days, to walk very slowly through the school my wife teaches at, and in the course of that actually to observe a little bit of interaction between teachers and some students at that school, Hillcrest Middle School in Coquitlam — be it little discussions one on one in the hall, classroom debates or some of the classroom activities that were going on in the school that I was able to observe as I hobbled down the corridors. I must say that every single one of them showed the kind of caring attitude that I think teachers across this province have for the students that we put under their care.

I applaud the minister for the discussions that he's having about excellence awards. The challenge, of course, is: with so many excellent teachers around the province, how would you choose from them? But I think that it's one of those things that we ought to be doing to make certain that the public fully understands that a child will grow up with a tremendous amount of influence from his or her teachers over the course of his or her lifetime, that influence is incredibly important, and in British Columbia that influence is outstanding.

J. Kwan: I'd like to continue on debate with the minister about some of the issues around education, particularly. I believe when we stopped two weeks ago…. I'm trying to sort of remember what we did and didn't cover. I think I'd like to just finish off the funding issues. There are just a few statements I'd like to put on record. Of course, during the two-week break — and that's the danger of it, you know — we get out into the communities, and then more people offer you more information, and here we are back again. I know we have dealt with some of the funding issues already, so I won't belabour them too much other than to put some of this information on the record.

As the minister knows, particularly in Vancouver, they are going through a budget exercise through which many programs are being eliminated as a result of a budget shortfall. Vancouver has quite a difficult situation before them, and they are faced with somewhere between a $9 million to an $11 million shortfall. One of the schools that I visited, actually, during the break provided me with information that I think is pertinent for the minister's information and consideration, especially as he looks to the future in terms of the funding formula and potential revisions of that funding formula in terms of what it might look like when he gets around to the cabinet table — which I trust that this minister will do, to advocate for the continuation of the Community LINK dollars. This, I think, is pertinent information, for it shows a story that perhaps is often hidden to the naked eye.

It relates not just to my schools. The chart actually provides information relating to 21 schools in Vancouver. They did an analysis and ranked the order by figuring out — and this is the first time, I believe, that we have this collection of data before us — information about the income levels for families below $20,000 and the percentage that falls into each of the different schools; the percentage of single parents in each of the schools; the percentage of families that are on income assistance; the number of vulnerable families, if you will; and then highlighting the number of vulnerable children from those families. Included in that analysis, they also looked at the percentage of adults that are unemployed. They looked at the crime and student ratio number, population mobility, student mobility, the percentage of aboriginal students and so on. So this is an across-the-board chart, if you will, to look at a little bit of the demographics of the students and families in each of the schools.

Here's what they found. In Admiral Seymour Elementary…. I'll just highlight a couple of the columns, because there are a lot of columns here. I don't want to put all of it on record; it just takes too long. At Seymour School, on the basis of these indicators, they've identified that there are some 69 vulnerable families — 92 vulnerable kids out of that school of 206. That is as of the enrolment for September 2002, and that is the most current number they have for that complete school year. So out of that 206, 92 have been identified as vulnerable kids.

At Grandview Elementary 81 students out of 184 have been identified as vulnerable kids; Macdonald Elementary, 81 out of 187; Britannia Community Elementary, 84 out of 225; Queen Alexandra, 112 out of 319; Thunderbird Elementary, 132 out of 379; Mount Pleasant Elementary, 109 out of 339; General Brock

Elementary, 89 out of 277; Tillicum, 55 out of 183; Florence Nightingale, 91 out of 326; Lord Strathcona, 150 out of 554; Lord Roberts, 129 out of 548; Tecumseh, 26 out of 122; Hastings, 130 out of 662; Simon Fraser, 41 out of 221; Selkirk, 122 out of 630; Richard McBride, 28 out of 142; Charles Dickens, 92 out of 483; Lord Roberts Annex, 20 out 155; Waverley, 58 out 441; and Laura Secord, 79 out of 609.

These numbers are revealing insofar as this. From the educators' point of view, they've identified what they deemed to be some of the key issues that students are faced with in their schools, and from there, they assessed the needs of the classroom, in a particular classroom — what would be required in terms of the number of staff to provide assistance, the kinds of programs the schools need to have in place to meet the needs of the students, in particular.

These numbers, I think, do tell a very important story. They say to look at the real numbers and the critical mass. Of course, if it's just one student, it's one thing, but when you have a number of students gathering together, then it does create a critical mass in terms of issues.

In this instance, to illustrate one example, Lord Strathcona, with 150 vulnerable kids, as a result of the budget shortfall would actually lose 5.4 staff in terms of professional support from a contingent of 8.4 previously. Last year they got 8.4. With the budget cut that's being proposed, they're going to lose 5.4. That only leaves them three professionals on site to deal with 150 students that have been identified as vulnerable — uniquely targeted towards that group of students.

I think it's fair enough to say that these schools who are faced with these kinds of cuts are reaching almost crisis proportions in terms of challenges they are faced with. I know that in spite of it all, because the schools are full of dedicated educators, principals and teachers, and volunteers and parents, they want to do everything they can even with these kinds of cuts. They will have to try and struggle through, but we know that the students will lose at the end of the day as a result of these kinds of cuts.

My final pitch here on funding issues in the estimates debate for Education is to the minister about being that advocate for students, both for the Community LINK program and for education programs generally, and to see it with a view to fund education as an investment for British Columbia — to lay the groundwork, the foundation, for future generations; to invest in the children up front now to see that it could make a difference for the future. I think that's what the parents and the educators are telling us. Certainly, the schools that I visited during the break are saying exactly that. They're laying out grim pictures with these cuts in terms of what their environment's going to look like and what the impacts are for their students.

I have the full document, and I'd be happy to share a copy with the minister. This document was presented to me from the Strathcona School. It was a presentation made to the school trustees on April 7, 2004, when there was a meeting. In it — and I think that's of interest here — is a table that outlines 21 schools in terms of the indicators to create this so-called critical mass of challenges.

That's the Vancouver situation, to wrap that up. Then I'd also like to just put on record a number of other schools. I think that I did hear the minister say that he hears a lot of complaints about Vancouver but he hasn't heard too many complaints about other districts. That, of course, is not necessarily true insofar as other complaints from the other districts. I certainly have received complaints. Maybe they haven't brought it to the minister's attention, but some of their complaints have flowed to the opposition. Let me just share some of that, for the minister's information, to wrap up the funding cuts pressures.

In the Okanagan region, particularly the Kamloops-Thompson, only one-third of the cutbacks are attributed to declining enrolment, as the district there has identified. The most severe blow comes from the teachers' agreement, which added another $2 million to the district's costs. We've covered that at length in terms of increased pressures. One of their secondary schools in fact has a long-respected fine arts department. They've had to axe some of their critical programs, like the jazz band program, the jazz choir and the senior band, as an example.

The Salmon Arm districts are looking to chop close to $1.4 million from their '04-05 budget and therefore, of course, have written a letter to the minister asking him to address the issue of funding shortfalls. The trustees had to reduce the budget by $2.7 million last year, resulting in the closure of two elementary schools, the shortening of the school year, increased class sizes and reductions of support staff and special education administration.

In the Vancouver Island area, although school boards are getting more money, they say it will not be enough to cover the rising costs of salaries, benefits, pensions, insurance and electricity. In fact, Charley Beresford, the school board chair, states: "The government is only telling half the story. What's missing is the rise in costs."

We also have a letter from the Vic High PAC outlining their concerns over increased class sizes, cuts for libraries, teachers, teacher-librarians and special needs funding.

In 2003 a coalition of parents and trustees took a 5,000-signature petition to the Legislature calling for adequate funding. Parents from four elementary schools slated for closure have taken the greater Victoria school district to court over the closure, which I'm sure the minister is aware of. In the Nanaimo area — another example — Nanaimo has cut $10 million in the past two fiscal years from a budget of $100 million by largely increasing class sizes and cutting student support services. Another $3.5 million will have to be cut from the '04-05 budget. They have lost 52 teachers, 37 CUPE support positions and four school administrative positions; increased class sizes; and reduced support to

inner-city schools by $480,000. Nanaimo predicts a deficit of $2.8 million for '04-05, and the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school board has voted to close four elementary schools.

I've already dealt with the Vancouver school, so let me move on to another district: the Coquitlam–Port Coquitlam area. The district may be cutting transportation due to a report on transportation policy that recommends restricting services to students who live beyond the district's walk limits of 3.2 kilometres. Students will be forced to walk through the forested area as well. In the Surrey district 250 staff have been eliminated, class sizes increased due to $12.8 million in budget cuts approved by the Surrey school board, and 137 CUPE positions were lost. In northern B.C., in Prince George on February 5, 2004, the minister said that a repeat of last year's $100,000 grant that saved Shady Valley Elementary is not a guarantee. Prince George school district has announced that the funding announced by the provincial government amounts to just more than $5 per pupil — new money that the district was not aware of — and 32 percent of the students in Prince George are attending schools outside of the catchment areas due to closures. In the Kootenays area the school district is looking at closing two more elementary and two more middle schools in 2004. These are just some examples in terms of issues that have risen.

As I mentioned, we have dealt with the funding issues previously, so I won't go back to rehash new information that has arrived since the break but simply just close with the statements that I've made, and that is to urge the minister to really advocate for this government to invest in education as an investment both socially and economically for our future.

Let me now move on to another area, and that would be the literacy initiative. In the throne speech the government announced a new major literacy initiative. The initiative included the following: becoming the most literate location in North America by 2010; enhancing reading, writing and numeracy as well as computer literacy and proficiency in English; and a new Premier's advisory panel on literacy to access urgent needs and recommend actions for improvement and to ensure students have "the textbooks they need to bring out their best."

Let me just ask the minister some basic questions. First, can the minister tell us how the word "literacy" is defined?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm going to take a couple of moments at the start just to respond to some of the member's comments around funding. It was a long question, so I'm trying to keep track of everything. I'm sure I perhaps missed something.

I appreciate the member's comments in terms of the EDI, which I think is the early development indicator. Those are the factors that the member alluded to in terms of some of the schools that serve the more vulnerable populations in Vancouver. Certainly, I'm aware of the work that Dr. Clyde Hertzman is doing. He's largely responsible for the development of a lot of that work. It's leading-edge work, and as British Columbians we should be proud that that work is being done here in British Columbia. The work itself is being strongly supported by the Minister of Children and Family Development, in particular by the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

I think it's critical information moving forward. I've had a brief opportunity to meet with Dr. Hertzman and was very interested in some of the preliminary findings he has, and I'm very much looking forward…. He told me that sometime this fall there's more information he expects to be coming together, so I'm very much looking forward to that. It's critical information for all of us to have — particularly those of us in government, whether at the provincial level or at other levels of government — as a planning tool for what we're doing and how we can allocate resources.

Certainly, the provincial government takes the needs of our more vulnerable students and our more vulnerable populations very seriously, but it's going to take something broader than simply the province to solve many of those issues. One of the issues I'm looking forward to discussing with the Vancouver school board when we meet at the end of April is the issue of the work that has been going on in the Vancouver school district with some of the community school programs and the programs that are specific to these more vulnerable students and more vulnerable communities.

As well, from what we do know of the Vancouver situation, I think there are other private sector partners there that are providing considerable support to some of their programs. It really is a sort of broader community involvement that is going to be necessary if we truly are going to make progress in addressing those challenges. I certainly agree with the member that it's important that we do make progress and do work hard to ensure that the resources we have are focused where we know they're going to make a strong difference. That is the particular value of a good deal of the work Dr. Hertzman is doing, because it will help us to ensure we are focusing those resources.

The member mentioned a number of other school districts, and I know I missed some of them. You know, there's no question that over the last number of years, as the province has had to work hard to get its fiscal house in order, it has meant that school districts have had to work hard in terms of the decisions they need to make to focus their resources on meeting the needs of their students. The province has maintained and is increasing education funding. Certainly, we've canvassed that at length in terms of these estimates debates, and the province is committed to continuing to do that, notwithstanding the overall decline in enrolment.

I know the member mentioned Kamloops-Thompson school district. I was there just at the beginning of March. I had an opportunity to visit John Tod Elementary school, which is, as I was told by the prin-

cipal and the school superintendent there, a good example of a school that for Kamloops is an inner-city school. They're doing great work at that school in there, and it's hard work to do. They're making considerable progress in meeting the needs of their students, particularly on issues around literacy.

I think the member mentioned a fine arts program in Kamloops. It's my understanding that next fall they're going to have a new fine arts–focused school in Kamloops. That certainly is moving forward in that district in concert with the provincial government's focus on providing a broader range of choices to students in response to what local students and parents are asking for.

I certainly came away from the meeting in Kamloops — having met with the superintendent and having visited a couple of schools and having also met with the Kamloops District Teachers Association — with the recognition that, yes, there are challenges there and that every year, as they deal with budgets, they have to make a concerted effort to ensure they are focusing their resources where they feel they'll make the most difference to students. From my discussions with the district administration itself…. While they still have to be very careful and work hard around the choices they're making, they felt they were getting into a position where they're in pretty good shape. They're certainly looking forward, as we move ahead, to the additional funding this next year and in coming years, as the provincial government has committed to.

As well, as the member mentioned, Prince George — which again is a school district I've visited — is a school district that, perhaps more than any other in the province, I think has really struggled due to the incredible decline in enrolment in that district. That has meant the closure of a good number of schools. Those are very difficult decisions for a district to make, and they have very direct impacts on communities. They are well through that process and are managing it very well.

I think part of the big answer to Prince George's challenges is a turnaround in the provincial economy in that region of the province, which will allow for enrolment to perhaps not increase but at least to level out so they're not continuing to have to deal year over year with a significant decline in the number of students they serve.

The member also mentioned Surrey. I had the benefit of being in Surrey last week to have a meeting with their school district and others, as well as to visit an elementary school and to open what I thought looked like just a fantastic two-day conference that the district of Surrey was hosting called Our Children, Our Future, wherein they were looking at what we should be doing in public education and asking about some of those bigger pictures like: where does public education go from here to ensure that it's meeting the needs of students?

Surrey has done a remarkable job over the last number of years of ensuring that they are using the three-year envelopes of funding projection that the ministry is now providing to plan a little bit more long term and to ensure that they get their fiscal house in order. Surrey is now reaping the benefits of that in that for this year they have…. The latest figure, I was told by Surrey, is about $7 million of funding for which they are now considering: "Okay, how can we spend that moving forward?" It's certainly starting out, in their initial budget projections, as being a $7 million surplus. They are now in the enviable position of being able to have money to say: "Okay, where do we make the next investment to make the greatest difference for students?"

We can talk for hours about funding. Perhaps one of the challenges at the provincial level in education is that we spend a good deal of time talking about funding, and really, we need to spend a little more time talking about how that funding is applied to ensure that students are being provided the best possible education, and about how we apply that funding in a manner that improves student achievement.

If we focus on that discussion, notwithstanding that districts are having to work hard around their budgets, which they always have to, then we do find that student achievement is improving and that districts are very much — and this is what really pleases me as I travel the province and meet with districts — focusing their resources on meeting the needs of students. Literacy is a very good example of that, where we have a large number of innovative programs going on around literacy throughout the province that are really achieving results for students. I'm pleased with how districts are managing their resources to focus very much on student achievement.

The member did ask about literacy and pointed out, rightly so, that in the throne speech, the government certainly indicated this year that we are going to have a strong emphasis on literacy, that we do want to become the most literate jurisdiction in all of North America by 2010 and that that included elements in respect of computer literacy. I think the specific question the member asked was how we define literacy. At this point, we're certainly defining literacy broadly to include what I think all of us would equate with literacy, which is reading and writing — sort of the traditional focuses of literacy — but also to include competency in numeracy. There is some good work going on in the province in that regard, as well as competency and exposure to the use and application of computers for our students, as that — I don't think anybody would disagree — is something that it is clear our students are going to have to be literate in, moving forward, if they are to fulfil their full potential in today's world.

J. Kwan: Just to provide also a quick response to the minister's response to me about funding, let's just be clear in terms of what we're saying here. I want to be particularly clear in terms of what I'm saying to the minister. Yes, we all support Dr. Clyde Hertzman's

work, and I don't think there's dispute about that. The issue that I do take with the minister's comments is that on that basis where we do support his work…. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, previously, around these debates, Dr. Clyde Hertzman was at a parent-held conference at which he spoke about the importance of funding things like Community LINK program and basic programs, particularly for what I term broadly as inner-city school locations, and the value of those kinds of programs. Yet we are faced with a situation where funding is being cut, certainly in the Vancouver area, for these important programs.

In fact, the broad question was brought up from the crowd that no matter who is in government, no matter what administration, when will that time come where we as parents, where they as educators, no longer have to come together to argue about the importance of these programs and to sustain them? Yet here we are again, almost ten years since the program has been brought in place around Community LINK, inner-city school projects, etc. We're now back at the same place, talking about how to fund it adequately.

Where I do take issue is that if the Minister of Children and Family Development indeed supports these programs, then I would expect that the funding would be there. Yet it isn't. Same thing for the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. If the support truly is there, as we say in politics, you can't just talk the talk; you gotta walk the walk and put the money where your mouth is. It's that simple. It's not really about this minister, but I do take issue with the minister's statement about his colleagues.

The minister also made a statement about getting the province's fiscal house in order. You know what? Being in government is about priorities. Make no mistake about it. There is never going to be enough money for all of the programs that we would like to see. It is about making priorities, and if education is one of those key priorities, well then, fund it adequately. It kind of again narrows it down to that.

The fact of the matter is that the government, before it even came into office, didn't even know whether or not we could actually give those tax breaks. The government gave tax breaks without looking at it and then later on turned around and said, "Oops, we have to cut a multiple set of programs across the province" — impacting British Columbians, students and families alike. Education is one of those areas that I would argue has been impacted as a result of the government's priorities and how they've set those priorities.

The minister likes to say…. I know we argued about this already, but the final point that I do want to say is this — and I just wish the minister and the government would just acknowledge this: the funding increase in education does not meet the cost pressure increases that this government has put forward that school districts are faced with. That is the reality. I wish someone would just acknowledge that, and then maybe we can move on.

The last thing I want to say is around community involvement. I agree absolutely that we need to look to see where community could be involved in supporting each other, whether it be in the school system or in other areas. Make no mistake about that. But we also must keep in mind that in some communities that is a little bit more difficult than in others.

I do know that very well in my own community, and I actually have experienced some of the challenges that perhaps some parents and families are now dealing with. If you're a new immigrant and you don't speak the language…. You're low income. Your parents don't have jobs. You've got six kids — in my case, with my own family. With my parents there were six of us just trying to make ends meet. Just trying to survive in those early days, community involvement was something way above and beyond for any of us to contemplate. All my parents could think about was how to make rent and put food on the table, to be honest with you, and just to keep us together and to survive that.

Do you know what? There are so many families that are in that situation now, I know, in my riding — but not just in my riding. I know that the Community LINK program was re-evaluated with this notion of sustainability, of community involvement, but you also need to take into account the reality of what people are faced with.

Yes, this week is Volunteer Week, and we celebrate volunteerism and people who support their communities, but you know what? It's on the basis of where they can and how they can. It mustn't be a judgment on the basis of only if you can't get that kind of community involvement type of initiatives would that warrant funding in terms of funding formulas for special programs and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I just want to make that pitch, because I do think it's an important one. I am prepared to let it go. I swear I am. I know it keeps coming back, but I'm going to let it go and really just focus on literacy here, so don't tempt me to go back to the funding issue. Don't tempt me. I'm trying to wrap up by 6 o'clock on education here if we can. Work with me, minister — through you, Mr. Chair.

On literacy. The minister says the word "literacy" is defined as reading, writing, competency in numeracy and computer skills. To what level would one be defined as literate in terms of their writing, reading, competency in numeracy and computer skills? How is one considered literate? What basic skills, perhaps, would one use to evaluate that?

Hon. T. Christensen: For reading, writing and numeracy, those are areas that are pretty well developed, and there are educational professionals that have a number of means or skill sets they're looking for in terms of determining particular levels of literacy. When we come to technology, it's a little more difficult, largely because it's a newer field, and I'm told it's not something that has been discussed at great length by those that are out there. Or perhaps the discussions

have gone at great length, but there hasn't been a great deal of agreement whereby this skill set means this level of computer literacy. There is work to be done there.

On that point, as I indicated earlier, I was at the opening of the B.C. Ed Online conference this morning in Richmond. Perhaps that provides an opportunity for us in terms of the computer literacy of our student population to involve teachers from around the province who are very much leaders in their field, combining technology and education to help us to try and define what sort of levels should we be looking for among our students to ensure they can adequately use those tools and the many opportunities those tools provide in today's world.

J. Kwan: It's not 100 percent clear in terms of how a person is deemed to be literate. Yes, there are tests out there, so presumably the throne speech that makes that statement — "Your government wants British Columbia to become recognized as the most literate location in North America by 2010" — does raise a question in terms of how that would be achieved.

Let me ask then, first of all, this question: how much of the ministry's budget will be dedicated to literacy or to this initiative?

Hon. T. Christensen: A couple of issues. I want to try and respond in terms of the goal of being the most literate jurisdiction in North America. It's a comparative goal: once we're better than everybody else, then we're there. Whether that means you need a population where everybody is at level X or at level Y depends on what the other jurisdictions are doing. British Columbia is doing well already, but we're not yet number one, and that is our goal.

Part of getting there, and the direction we need to help us get there, will be determined by the Premier's panel on literacy, which has yet to be established. That is something government is working on. The purpose of having that panel is to provide us some guidance on how we move forward to ensure we accomplish this goal.

Similarly, within the ministry budget now, there aren't specific dollars allocated to literacy. That is something we're discussing in terms of what may be required to support the work this literacy panel may do and what sort of programs or direction may need to flow from the ministry directly. But much of the current, very good work being done around literacy throughout the province is…. Dollars that come from the ministry go to school districts as part of their overall grant, and all 60 school districts have indicated within their accountability contracts that they are focusing on literacy. Really, it depends how they're doing that from one district to another and exactly how the dollars the province provides are being focused by school districts on literacy.

Rather than saying, "Here's X million dollars or X hundred thousand dollars within district such-and-such to develop a literacy program," what we're saying is: "We'd like you to focus on literacy. Let us know what you're doing there through your accountability contracts." Then the districts themselves are determining how best to do that. They're doing different things around the province, which enables the districts themselves and the teachers around the province to learn from one another as to what best works with particular populations and ensure that the overall goal of improving literacy is met.

J. Kwan: The minister says the determination for what jurisdiction will become the most literate in British Columbia will be based on a comparative analysis…

J. Kwan: …within North America. So while we're pretty good…. According to the throne speech, about 40 percent of adults in British Columbia have low literacy skills. Presumably, we have to reduce that 40 percent number to whatever…. I don't know what the target is.

Let me ask this question: who is number one? What's the percentage, and who is identified as the number one jurisdiction in North America for achieving this goal?

My other question is: what statistical analysis is the government using to make this evaluation? What tests are you applying to make a determination of the level of literacy that exists in British Columbia or other jurisdictions?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's important to recognize that we're not dealing just with the K-to-12 sector when we talk about the goal the throne speech sets out. Certainly, it is easier to judge our progress in K-to-12, and our progress relative to other jurisdictions, because there are standardized tests that are administered internationally. We get the benchmarks, and we get the comparisons.

Typically, the ones that are relied on internationally and that are the tests taken by students within the education system in British Columbia are the tests administered by OECD and the PISA tests that are international. It is countries that enter those, typically, but in Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been entering them as countries so that we get an idea of how we're doing as provinces relative to others. It seems to fluctuate between Alberta and Quebec in terms of who is doing the best, and then B.C. is behind those, so there is certainly some work to do.

In terms of the 40 percent figure I think the member referred to and that was referred to in the throne speech, that is certainly an estimation the Minister of Advanced Education would probably be able to provide a little more background on. They deal more with adult learners in terms of those literacy issues. It is

somewhat of a statistical estimation, and I can find out for the member, if she likes, but I don't know off the top of my head how that figure was arrived at. Certainly, I'm happy to try and get that, if that's something the member would like, because it's an important benchmark in terms of where we're going.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that, which is why I asked the question in terms of what kinds of tests and how they would be applied. It's so that we'll know here's where we're at by 2010, when this throne speech claims we're going to be at number one in North America. It does also mention in the throne speech: "The government will act to improve literacy in our schools. It will act to ensure students have the textbooks they need to bring out their best." It talks about, in addition to the panel, the adult literacy cost-shared program in terms of its funding as well. If the minister could provide that information, I would appreciate it in terms of what he can garner.

Now, on the question around the ministry's budget and how much of that is dedicated to this literacy initiative, the minister advised that there are none at this time. The budget from the ministry goes to the school districts, and each of the school districts will have a variety of programs.

Again, I guess just to get a sense of how we will match the language of the throne speech to reality — that is, we will "act to ensure the students have the textbooks they need to bring out their best." That's the throne speech the government had delivered. Can the minister give me a breakdown of how much funding is or will be dedicated to textbooks, to the Premier's literacy panel — is that funded by this ministry, or is that funded by another source? — and to ESL programming, as an example. Again, these are benchmarks I would like to establish with the minister.

Hon. T. Christensen: The member raises a number of issues in terms of the overall program around literacy. Part of the challenge is that much of that is being worked on as we speak by my ministry and by others in terms of how we make this program move forward. I'm not in a position at this point to provide the detail that the member is seeking, because I don't have that information. It hasn't yet been determined.

Part of it, around textbooks, is identifying what needs to be done there. That, in and of itself, is a difficult question, given that the world of textbooks and the use of them is changing in terms of the education system as a whole and where students now get information from. Textbooks, in some courses, as I understand it, continue to play a very critical role, but in others, they do not.

There even were suggestions at the conference this morning, in terms of looking far ahead, that we're fast leaving the age of textbooks and that education needs to become more project-based. That's perhaps a little ways out yet. Part of the challenge in the education system is to continually be looking a number of years forward and saying: "What are the teaching methods and the resources to support those teaching methods that are going to be most critical?"

At this point, though, within this ministry we are looking at the textbook issue. That is part and parcel of the work we're doing under the literacy initiative. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position yet to provide the member with a great deal of detail.

J. Kwan: Okay. On the question around textbook funding, we don't know how much the budget will be. That's work underway. I can appreciate that the minister doesn't have this information here. Does he have the information on how much money is being put toward textbook funding now? Maybe I can get an answer to that question.

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes. At this point, textbooks are purchased by districts. The supplies they need and the resources they need for the classroom are determined on a district-by-district basis. They purchase those from the overall funding that's provided by the province to school districts, rather than there being a sort of central depository where we issue them.

Just in follow-up to that, certainly, we're working on initiatives to try and ensure that we enhance the ability of school districts to obtain textbooks and other resources through central buying opportunities. We're working with Alberta in terms of whether there's anything we can do to find savings to ensure that we're better enabling districts to get those resources, both textbooks and software.

J. Kwan: That's quite curious. I would have thought the minister would have some sense — even though I understand it's the school districts that go and make the purchase of textbooks and so on — of how much money is dedicated in our system toward textbooks. For the throne speech to make a statement that says: "We'll act to ensure students have the textbooks they need to bring out their best…." How will that statement be achieved if we don't even know what that base figure is, when we don't even know what the baseline is in terms of textbooks, what the lay of the land is, if you will, around the need for textbooks in our schools?

Hon. T. Christensen: As a ministry, I can tell the member how much is spent on services and supplies globally by all districts combined over the last couple of years, but that's much broader than textbooks alone. Part of the challenge — at least in terms of answering the question to the member's satisfaction, perhaps — is that we've provided to a great extent…. It does come back to how we're funding school districts, in that we're providing them a big pool of money and saying: "You determine how you want to best meet the needs of your students."

One school district may say: "We want to buy these additional textbooks." Another school district may say: "Given the students we're trying to serve and the program we're delivering, we want to add a teacher instead of buying textbooks." They need to make those choices, and we think those choices are better made at that local district level.

It will perhaps depend on where a particular district is focusing its energies as to what it spends on textbooks in any particular year. It will also depend on what they spent last year and the year before as to how much they spend this year. In terms of services and supplies, generally, I can tell the member that in 2002-03, districts around the province spent a little under $455.7 million. In the following year, '03-04, they spent a little bit under $474.5 million. Again, it's a pretty broad basket of services and supplies that are included in those figures.

J. Kwan: I have the information here just for Vancouver in terms of what they're faced with, with budget constraints and shortfalls. For example, Vancouver is looking at cutting in their learning and information technology area, $644,937; hardware and computer allocation, $100,000; elementary and secondary library resource material, $196,000; district and tech centres supplies, $128,337; school-based technical support, $55,000; learning information technology, $98,300; media and library services, $57,000; etc.

Anyway, they have a full list of the cuts there. It would seem to me, given the whole funding question, that when there are pressures, the school districts are forced to cut elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. Given that's the reality many school districts are faced with, they would actually have to cut the funding in this area in terms of providing resources, supplies, textbooks, etc. I'm not quite sure how the government will meet the statement in their throne speech that they "will act to ensure students have the textbooks they need to bring out their best." It really does beg that question.

The minister says he doesn't have the information. The school district provides that. He has a global number that is much broader than the textbook funding. Can the minister find out what the textbook funding is? Is that a task that's possible?

Hon. T. Christensen: We would have to ask boards for that information to get it. We don't typically do that on a year-over-year basis, again, because we allow districts to make those decisions in terms of how they want to allocate their resources. They do have a broad range. In Vancouver's case, it's a little over a $400 million budget this year, and they decide where they're going to focus those resources. That means making choices in terms of whether it's textbooks or a classroom teacher or an education assistant. Those are choices.

I recognize, certainly, that Vancouver is saying they would like more money to do that with. We've given them an additional $10.2 million this year. Vancouver is in the process, or they have just completed the process, of determining how they're going to allocate those resources. If Vancouver doesn't want to make those decisions and would prefer that we be funding textbooks centrally — and I'm not suggesting Vancouver has said that…. If the ministry were to fund textbooks directly or fund any other element of the costs currently borne by school boards directly, then we would have to adjust the money being spent centrally by the Ministry of Education versus the money being spent or given or provided to school districts that they then decide how to spend.

I don't believe that would be a more effective means of managing the system. That's why we provide the vast bulk of the funding available to school districts and allow them to decide, based on what they identify, as locally elected officials, as their priorities.

J. Kwan: The minister is missing my point. My point is this: in a situation where many of the school districts are faced with funding shortfalls, yes, this government and this minister and the minister before him would like to say it's up to school districts to decide where they spend their funding and what their priorities are.

The fact of the matter is that government is underfunding education. They're underfunding education in the sense that education funding has not kept pace with increased pressures. We have established that already. In Vancouver, yes, the minister says they've got over a $10 million increase, but at the same time the pressures they are faced with exceed $10 million. In the per-pupil funding for students in Vancouver, the increase in pressures is $336, yet the funding increase is only $181. I want to set that aside for a moment, because I don't want to get back to the funding debate.

The issue I want to raise is this. In the throne speech, there is an explicit statement that says: "The government will act to improve literacy in our schools. It will act to ensure students have the textbooks they need to bring out their best." If that's the case — a statement that this government has made in its throne speech — then I guess maybe it's a simple question: how would that be delivered? The minister says they're still working on a plan. Can I, then, safely expect that from this plan, there will be increased funding to the school districts for this specific initiative and this specific target?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think it would be premature of the member to assume anything specific. I've indicated that certainly the commitment is there in the throne speech. It's something that the Ministry of Education is working on together with the Premier's office in terms of how we fulfil this commitment, how we appropriately assess the commitment and the need that is to be fulfilled and then how we meet that.

An option — and I'm not saying this is the option that would be chosen — is to provide dollars to school

districts to have them purchase the textbooks they want to purchase. Another option is to have the ministry do that. There may be further options. Those are the things that, quite frankly, are part of the discussion and the things that we're working on so that as we move forward in the next number of weeks, we're in a position to make an announcement as to how that specific commitment is going to be fulfilled.

Hon. T. Christensen: I can certainly confirm for the member that it will be within this budget year, but I'm not prepared to commit to a specific time line. It would be premature to do that. I don't want to commit to one and then not meet it. It's something we are working very diligently on within the ministry in terms of making sure we're in a position to fulfil the commitment, but I don't want to agree to anything beyond that it will certainly be within this budget year.

J. Kwan: Is that out of the existing budget of the Ministry of Education or other ministries?

J. Kwan: What line item will the budget for this initiative be coming out of from the Ministry of Education? Under what line in the budget book?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's from the public schools subvote, which is part of the $4,147,463,000.

J. Kwan: So it would be coming out of the existing budget. There would be no additional moneys, as far as I could tell, from this ministry. Maybe I'm incorrect in understanding that, so I'll wait.

Hon. T. Christensen: It depends on what the member means in terms of no additional moneys. It won't be coming out of the money that has already been committed to go to schools in terms of their grants next year. The vast majority of the $4.15 billion that is part of the public schools subvote goes directly to school districts, but there's still some within that particular vote that's within the ministry to assist with provincewide types of programs. That's where we fund some additional resources within the ministry to support this particular initiative.

J. Kwan: Maybe I can just get the fine print from the minister a little bit, then. Out of the $4.15 billion for public schools, how much is the minister anticipating will be dedicated to public schools that has already been allocated based on the funding formula the ministry has?

Hon. T. Christensen: From the government's '04-05 fiscal year that we're just starting, $3,849,900,000 is funding directly to school districts. There's then a little bit more that comes out of the '05-06 year to give us the $3.875 billion, which is what school districts are expecting in terms of grants for their '04-05 school year. We come back to that challenge of dealing with different schools years that, I think, either the member or the member's colleague and I canvassed at some length.

J. Kwan: The remaining amount, which is about $350 million — what other projects that the ministry will be funding would the minister be digging into that sum for?

Hon. T. Christensen: The difference between the figures is about $297.5 million, and that includes a wide variety of things. The largest is $133 million in terms of the annual capital grant going to districts. There's funding there for leases of $3.842 million, $26.6 million to the provincial resource program, $11.9 million to distance education. The provincial learning network is $19.9 million. There's a long list of varying figures in terms of the dollars that are in that public schools subvote, all of which are for support services to public schools.

J. Kwan: That level of detail of information is not in the budget books, as far as I could see. When you add up all of those dollars, supportive dollars for public schools, if you will — I don't know what the formal term is that the ministry uses, but it appears to me that's what they are — how much does that amount to?

The difference between what the budget is for public schools and the amount that's already been announced will be the grant that comes out of the '04-05 government budget for public schools. The difference between those two is that $297.563 million. The biggest chunk of that — a little less than half — is the $133 million to the annual capital grant. There are some other priorities that are paid out of that. I think I mentioned the provincial learning network, for example — the provincial resource program. But there is otherwise a good deal of discretion in the balance of that $297 million in terms of what the ministry chooses to do with it.

J. Kwan: Based on the numbers the minister has given me so far, and this is just my quick, rough calculation, it's $297 million and then minus the big-ticket item, the annual capital grant of $133 million, and there was $4 million for leases. I think it was $3.8 million something, so I rounded it up to $4 million. Then there was a bunch of others — provincial resources, distance education, etc. I added all the figures the minister put forward, which is about $60.4 million. That leaves about $100 million of discretionary funding that's not earmarked for some sort of initiative already.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's earmarked in terms of what it's been used for in past years, but it's something that I can choose to move around a bit to try and free up dollars in terms of the literacy initiative in particular. I can tell the member the difference between what was spent in that broad category last year versus this year. That gives perhaps some better indication of where there's some discretion.

Last year there was about $285 million that was spent there. This year we're up at about $297.5 million. You've got about $12.5 million there that arguably is new money in that pocket. Certainly, all of those dollars are slotted for certain expenditures, but there is some variation around that through the year as we try to fulfil particular commitments.

J. Kwan: Maybe just to facilitate discussion or to speed up discussion here…. We don't have that information. I don't have that chart in front of me, so it's kind of hard to talk about what programs fall within that under what year. Maybe the minister can just provide that information to us in writing, year over year, so we can look at it and see how it differs four years back.

I fully understand that in this budget year the minister has some discretion in terms of how he could spend those moneys that are not earmarked and that it might vary from how it was in previous years. I fully understand that, but just so that I understand the whole framework of what we are talking about…. We can then just move on.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, it's for four years so I can compare it over the last four years. Okay. Thank you for that.

The minister says he's working with others on the Premier's advisory panel on literacy on this literacy initiative. Is the minister or the ministry on this panel? Is the ministry responsible for funding this panel?

Hon. T. Christensen: The panel's not yet established, so nobody's on it yet. The ministry certainly is actively involved in the discussions around how to ensure that this initiative works the best it can.

J. Kwan: Is there no funding right now out of the Ministry of Education's budget that is funding the work or that will be funding the work of the panel? There's no anticipation of that?

J. Kwan: Public school libraries are directly tied, I would argue, to enhancing literacy, yet the throne speech, of course, doesn't mention anything for public school libraries in the literacy initiative. Can the minister tell me: in his ongoing work around this initiative, will public school libraries be tied into the literacy initiative?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't tell the member that because that's something that is certainly part of the broad mix of what are potential resources or potential points of emphasis in developing literacy. It's very premature to say where particular emphasis may be and where resources should be allocated to bring the greatest result.

J. Kwan: Here are some facts around public school libraries. As I mentioned, the throne speech talked about the dedication of this government to literacy, and the fact is that genuine and real support for school libraries is sorely lacking under this government. These are the basic facts about the public school libraries in British Columbia. Most of the libraries have had hours and staff cut in half. The provincial funding for teacher-librarians has been cut from one librarian per 400 students to one per 700 students in the current system.

In Chilliwack, for example, there has been a reduction in teacher-librarian time at 14 out of 25 libraries. In the Gulf Islands only one high school, one middle school and one K-to-12 school will have teacher-librarians next year. In Surrey there has been a reduction in teacher-librarian time and a reduction in book budgets. This is just some basic information.

Hon. T. Christensen: Public libraries don't fall within the mandate of this ministry.

What I should do, I think, is get around to the point the member is making in terms of how resources have been allocated within school districts to determine what they do around school libraries. I think there is perhaps…. If we think a little broader, there is some opportunity out there to look at how we serve communities through both public libraries and school libraries combined. There are some interesting things going on in some of our smaller communities around that.

What the ministry is focused on when we talk about literacy is outputs rather than inputs. Rather than dictating, "Here are the specific things that every school district or every school must require. Here are specific ratios in terms of teacher-librarians to students" — all of which I would classify as inputs, and arguably, they are important inputs — instead focus on the outputs. Say to school districts, "We want you to improve literacy" — as I said earlier, all of the school districts have taken on that challenge — and then allow those school districts, within the resources they have, to determine how best to do that.

I've been around the province visiting school districts. As I indicated earlier, there are some pretty innovative things going on through school districts choosing to have specific literacy coaches or literacy teachers, who are then supports to classroom teachers, who are then incorporating literacy programming, not

just as in a specific course for students but also through the whole range of course matter that students may be exposed to in school.

I'm pleased with what we've seen over the last couple of years in terms of the continued improvement in the literacy achievement of students, and that's due to school districts being innovative in terms of how they're going to meet the needs of those students and realize that goal of continued achievement.

J. Kwan: I should be clear with my language, and I apologize if I confused the minister. I don't mean public libraries. I meant school public libraries — libraries within the school system. Let's just call them school libraries for ease of reference here. That's what I mean.

In fact, there have been studies that show resourcing libraries at the schools actually assists in student outcomes, and literacy certainly falls within that realm. I will have further information around this particular issue, but right now I just want to focus on this.

I assume that in fact school libraries do fall within the jurisdiction of this ministry. Public libraries don't. That's the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and I fully understand that.

Hon. T. Christensen: We don't require districts to report that information to us in order…. Have they chosen to report that information to us and….

Again, I think where the member and I perhaps disagree in terms of the approaches is that the ministry has said to school districts: "Improve literacy. Figure out how to do it in terms of what you think will work best in your district." Some of them have chosen to focus on retaining and perhaps enhancing school libraries. Others have said they're going to put resources to literacy coaches or to specific literacy programs. As a ministry, what we're interested in — what I'm particularly interested in — is looking at…. If I look at a specific school district, how are the students in that school district doing in terms of their reading skills, their writing skills, other literacy skills?

J. Kwan: I can appreciate the notion that the minister says we don't want to tell school districts how they should spend their money and where they should spend their money. All we're going to tell them is that these are the outcomes we expect. Literacy would be one of them: "Go and improve literacy skills."

The reality again is this, and I hate to keep harping on this notion. It's around funding school districts. Yes, you can give them all the autonomy they want, but the reality is that if they are faced with budget shortfalls, they're going to have to compromise in terms of the students' learning environment somewhere along the line.

Historically, here's what we know in terms of the information to date. In the year 2002 it was reported that some 91 school libraries had closed. I don't know what the figure is for 2003. It was the Vancouver Province that reported that out.

School libraries do play a critical role in student literacy and achievement, yet the government continues to cut funding for school libraries and at the same time is saying: "We want solutions to curb increasing literacy problems." At some point in time the minister and this government have to step up to the plate and provide the tools that are required to enhance that literacy target.

The B.C. Library Association has written a letter to the Premier dated October 30, 2003. Let me just put parts of the letter on the record, and I'd like to invite the minister's comment. The letter actually talks about test scores as well, so it's not just opinions about how one feels about libraries but rather is based on some factual information.

The letter is written to all members of the Legislature. Pardon me; I said it was written to the Premier. The letter reads:

It has further comments and then the attachment with it and is signed by the president of the BCLA. Their comment around libraries is tied directly to student outcomes, and so I would argue that funding school libraries would be an important aspect of improving literacy.

The minister says it is up to districts to decide how they spend their money. It is up to districts to decide what student-to-teacher-librarian ratio should exist. However, given the proven relationship between teacher-librarians and school libraries to enhanced stu-

dent outcomes, will the minister then commit to restoring at least the teacher-librarian ratio for every 400 students today?

Hon. T. Christensen: I absolutely won't commit to that. In fact, I think it would be the exact wrong thing to do. This year we are increasing the overall funding in grants to school districts by $85 million. I could have taken that $85 million and said: "I'm going to spend it on specific things and require every school in the province to do specific things. Here are the dollars to do that."

The approach the government has been taking — and I think it's very much the right approach, and I believe school districts think it's the right approach, although they'll argue they want additional dollars in some cases, but they won't, typically, argue with the approach — is to provide the funding to the school districts, provide the overarching goals to the school districts and then allow them to decide how best to meet that goal.

When it comes to school libraries, I'm a great fan of school libraries. I have spent a lot of time in school libraries. I don't think anybody can argue that they're not in support of school libraries. But it's school districts that get to decide, given that their goal is improving literacy, what is the basket of tools they can use to reach that goal, what resources they have to reach that goal and how they best allocate those resources to meet that goal. I am not, as minister, going to impose my singular judgment on that decision on a district-by-district basis over how individual school districts wish to make that particular decision.

I think that taking that approach is actually working well in the sense that if we get back to what the goal is in terms of school libraries…. I'll certainly acknowledge that improving literacy isn't going to be the sole goal of school libraries, but the goal we're talking about at the moment is improving the reading and writing and literacy skills of students.

Good progress is being made by school districts around the province in choosing how to best meet that goal, whether that's looking at focused teaching strategies, whether that's specific programs like reading recovery, whether that's additional resources to school libraries or whether that's a broad range of other initiatives that are out there in this day and age in terms of pedagogy around how we best improve literacy achievement for our children.

J. Kwan: Well, I suppose I kind of expected that answer from the minister — that he wouldn't, of course, bring back the ratio, nor would the government actually fund education in such a way that school districts can provide that ratio.

Let's be clear. I don't think school districts increased that ratio because they thought it was the best thing to do in terms of support for the students. Given the funding shortfall, they had no choice but to reduce staffing. Therefore, they had to make those decisions, just so this government can walk away by saying: "Hey, we didn't cut school libraries. The school districts did." Well, I would argue that that not be the truth, because school districts are forced to make all these cuts because of provincial funding shortfalls.

The interesting thing is this. I expect that the minister may not have this information, but I would appreciate it if he can find out. How much of the school budgets, on average, goes to the libraries?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't have that information with me, but I'm happy to provide that information for the member.

J. Kwan: Great. If I could get that information year over year for the last four years — again, for the purposes of comparison — I would appreciate that.

Let me ask the minister, then, another area of library questions. It is my understanding that the government on January 27, 2004, announced that it was awarding 60 schools $3,000 to expand their literacy programs. Now of course, instead of putting sustained funding into public school libraries, the government chose to award a small amount of funds in the form of one-time grants to schools. It is my information that 132 schools had applied for this grant, from 43 school districts. Only 60 schools were awarded this grant, so that leaves about 72 schools that were not awarded this one-time grant.

Could the minister advise: for the schools that did not get the award, what did their applications lack?

Hon. T. Christensen: The literacy awards the member refers to are awards that were decided by the UBC Leadership Centre, so it wasn't the Ministry of Education that made that determination. The government provided and is providing $180,000 to the UBC Leadership Centre in each of two years — last year and then this year. That's two-year funding for this awards program.

The awards program stems directly from a recommendation in the student achievement task force that we need to look at ways of providing an incentive to districts to try new and innovative approaches to things. Given the ministry's desire for a focus on literacy, we're pleased that the UBC Leadership Centre is involved in looking at these applications that districts submit. We're very pleased that the number of schools the member mentioned — I think it was around 132 — are looking at ways they can be innovative in teaching literacy.

Similarly, those schools that are looking at new ways of doing things were very much featured at the recent innovations conference the ministry was involved in here in Victoria. We were very pleased to be able to showcase a number of very innovative things that are happening in public schools in British Columbia to participants who attended from around the world, all of whom recognize that B.C. is a leader in

J. Kwan: Yes, the minister says the ministry didn't evaluate which applications should be granted the dollars and that someone else did, but the minister cannot shirk his responsibility for a basic fact. The fact that 132 schools had applied is, I think, an indicator of the need amongst the schools for dollars, whether it be for innovation or different programs in the school libraries. The fact is that people want these dollars in the system to enhance their school library system and, therefore, the education environment for students.

Seventy-two schools actually didn't get the dollars, and I think that's an indicator to the minister that there are some issues here. Instead of doing one-time grant-like awards for school libraries for such programs, perhaps the government should consider providing sustainable resources to school libraries for innovation and to provide and enhance the learning environment for students.

The report entitled The Crisis in Canada's School Libraries: The Case for Reform and Re-Investment, which was released in June 2003, was written by Dr. Ken Haycock from the University of British Columbia with the support of a review committee from the Canadian Coalition for School Libraries. The report contained 13 recommendations and set out the current alarming state that public school libraries in Canada are facing. Is the minister aware of this report?

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that the minister has read the report. Well, maybe I shouldn't just make that assumption. Maybe I should ask that question.

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, certainly I'm aware of the report. I personally have reviewed a good chunk of the report, although it's been a little bit of time now. Certainly, the ministry itself is very familiar with the report.

J. Kwan: Does the minister agree that there is a crisis in Canada regarding school libraries?

J. Kwan: The minister says he doesn't agree that there is a crisis. What is the minister's rationale for that?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm aware of a number of school libraries throughout the province — I've had the opportunity to visit a number of them — that are functioning very well. I think it's clear that school libraries are in a transition, given how students learn. The purpose of a school library, the traditional library when I was in school 25 years ago, has certainly changed today. They're evolving much faster now, even year over year, than they did when I was in high school, much as the world is evolving much faster year over year. The need for looking at new ways of doing things to meet our students' needs and to continually improve student achievement is changing much more rapidly than I think it ever has before.

I acknowledge that there are those who have concerns about school libraries. I acknowledge that school librarians or an organization that specifically represents school librarians is going to have concerns in terms of the ongoing changes. Overall, I think that our schools and our students are still well served by the libraries in schools. Certainly, that's what I've seen firsthand. School districts, as they allocate their resources, do need to continue to look at what role the school library can play and how to enhance that as well as how to enhance their other overall goals around student achievement.

J. Kwan: The minister gave a quick, snappy answer when asked the question if he agreed with the statement from this report that Canada's libraries are in a crisis state. He said no. He said he's visited libraries that appear to be doing well.

Has the minister visited any of the libraries that have shut? Has the minister visited any libraries that are not doing so well?

Hon. T. Christensen: I have yet to be made aware of a single library in a school that is open and has students in it that isn't still open. I know the member referred to a figure of 91 libraries in 2002. I think the member indicated that it was reported in the Province newspaper. Certainly, I haven't been given any information which indicates that any library in the province is not open which is in a school that is serving students.

There have been a number of school closures due to declining enrolment as well as schools that have been replaced with new schools around the province. That may be where the Province newspaper was getting that 91 figure. It lines up, rather coincidentally, with what I believe were school closures about that time period.

As I say, my personal experience as I've visited schools — and I think that without exception when I've been in schools, I've had an opportunity to be through the library — is that they are very active, well-used and well-functioning parts of the schools I've visited.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that must be the case. The minister sets a snapshot of some of the schools around the province in his short tenure as the Minister of Education to date. We'll show a way better picture in terms of his knowledge base of what the state of school libraries is in British Columbia. He disagrees with the finding of the people who dedicated their time to actually look not just at one or two or three schools or libraries but rather to study this issue seriously to come to their conclusions. But I guess this government knows best and this minister knows best. Everybody else is wrong,

because their information happens to not correspond with what the minister or this government would like to hear.

Let me just put this on the record for the minister's digestion. The report actually says this, and these are facts in the current context today. "In British Columbia provincial funding for teacher-librarians has been reduced from 1 to 400 students with paid clerical assistance to 1 to 700 with no clerical assistance."

Then it goes on to talk about: "According to the B.C. Teacher-Librarian Association, budgets for materials have dropped by more than 50 percent in ten years and very sharply across the province, from 80 cents per student per year in one district to 35 cents in another in 2003, the latter providing for maintenance but not growth of the collection of materials."

Tying this more importantly, I suppose, to learning outcomes, the report actually talks about, again, enhanced achievements in terms of student achievements. Perhaps that would be the measure that would be most important for the minister — the impact on the learning. Year over year, in terms of decade over decade, they have different findings. Going to the 1990s, let me just highlight a couple of their findings:

This is from the 1990s. That's the most recent decade, if you will, in terms of student outcome in achievement.

The report, of course, goes on to talk about the impact on learning as well. From today, here is just some specific information, again, for the minister:

That's in terms of the reading aspect of things. It goes on to talk about best practices, and then it provides for a number of recommendations.

The minister says he doesn't agree with the report in their findings that the school libraries across Canada — but certainly British Columbia as well — are in a crisis situation. He says the school libraries that he has seen appear to be doing quite well, yet we have a list of recommendations that says otherwise, even though libraries have been reported to contribute to better student achievement and particularly better for students in the area of reading skills.

The government has said in its throne speech that they want to be the best in enhancing literacy in British Columbia, in North America. They want to be number one, in fact, on this measure. To that end, one would think it would make sense to invest in school libraries. We think there is a link and correlation between libraries and student achievement.

Out of all of the recommendations in this report, is there any recommendation that the minister agrees with?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't have the report right in front of me, nor do I have a list of the recommendations right in front of me. What I said I disagreed with was the overall conclusion of the report. I agree with the report that school libraries are an important factor in student learning.

What I've said to the member and I'll say again is that they are one factor of many and that we have a decision to make in terms of our approach to how public education is governed in the province as to whether we're going to make all these decisions in Victoria and dictate to every school in the province that if you have this many students, you must have this many teacher-librarians; you must buy these books; and you must have a library that does this, that and the other thing. At the same time, we can dictate to them what they should be doing in terms of the specific literacy programs they should be offering. We can dictate to them what they should be doing in terms of the specific courses they should be offering.

We can. We have the ability in Victoria within the Ministry of Education to dictate all those things, if we so choose. We've said no; we don't like that approach. Yes, school libraries are an important part of the mix. They are one component that a school district needs to look at in terms of allocating its resources to meet the goal of improving student achievement around literacy or student achievement in other areas.

I certainly would encourage school districts when they're making decisions as to how to allocate their resources to look at the report the member refers to and to take into account those conclusions and the research behind those conclusions, just as I would very strongly urge them to take into account other research around the resources or the application of resources for learning in particular areas. I'm not going to impose the ministry's specific preferences, one way or the other, on districts around the province.

J. Kwan: It's interesting in terms of the minister's response. He says no, they're not going to dictate minimum standards that should apply in terms of students to teacher-librarian ratios. I think that's one thing that I would differ with the minister on, especially when you have reports that come forward that say that

the relationship between school libraries and student outcomes…. It does make a person wonder why the government would do away with successes, to be honest with you, things that have been identified to be successful in achieving the very thing that the minister and the government keeps on claiming they want to achieve — that is, better student outcomes.

Studies have also shown — and this I've identified — that library funding tends to go up and down depending on the global funding for the districts — again, because the funding issue is such that with increased pressures for school districts, school districts have no choice but to cut, whether or not they want to cut. Let's be clear about that.

The minister says he doesn't have the recommendations. Let me just highlight a couple of them and test and see whether or not the minister is in agreement with some of these recommendations.

Recommendation 2 talks about: "In order to ensure provincial leadership: that Ministries of Education provide at least one specialist in teacher-librarianship and resource-based learning to provide guidance and support across the ministry and province, across the curricular areas and types of libraries and to school districts."

Let me ask the minister this question. Well, first, is there such a specialist in the province right now?

Hon. T. Christensen: What we do is work with the Alberta government through the learning resources branch, which in turn works with teachers in Alberta and British Columbia — so a broad range of educational professionals in both jurisdictions — to assess resources that are available and make recommendations as to the application of particular resources to particular ends. That information we then work to make available to principals and school districts around the province so that they've got this strong, broad-based resource in terms of making their choices around the resources they would like in their particular schools or districts.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that instead of a specialist in the province, we actually have a committee of people that is working across different provinces to do the task that I identified?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes. I am saying there is not a specific specialist within the ministry who does that. What we do is work with not just one committee but many committees, depending on the particular area of interest, which in turn work with teacher professionals throughout the province to try and get that feedback in terms of resources and what works for particular applications and what's recommended.

J. Kwan: There are many different committees that various different individuals are involved with to address this issue. Who are they, and how could one contact them? Let's say the school district or somebody in the school system would like to contact someone to seek their expert advice on some issue related to libraries. Who does one contact?

Hon. T. Christensen: If they were looking for a specific point of contact within the Ministry of Education, it would be Rick Withers, who can then either help them directly or put them in contact with whom they should talk to, relevant to the particular thing they are looking at.

J. Kwan: These various individuals in these various different committees — are they ministry staff?

Hon. T. Christensen: No, they are teachers, primarily, from around the province.

Hon. T. Christensen: There is a host of means by which people end up on these committees. When the ministry is looking at a particular area where they may want some feedback, personnel within the ministry may identify educators they know of that have a particular interest, so they may approach them individually. We'll approach school districts and ask for recommendations. In some cases, people are aware that the ministry's working on a particular basket of resources, and they may contact us and ask to be involved. There's not a single formal process to do it.

So far, it appears to have worked well in terms of getting a broad representation of educators around the province, which really is, I think, the major benefit of this type of structure. You're getting people from different districts that can perhaps identify different unique needs of different classes around the province in approaching a particular resource issue.

J. Kwan: I can appreciate if the minister may not necessarily have this information. Could the minister provide me with a list of what these committees are and the role of these committees and who's involved in them, so I know if there are a bunch of these committees? What is their role, who is involved in them, and what is their mandate?

J. Kwan: Let me ask this question: does the minister have any sense of what the school library collections state of affairs is like now? Has the ministry done any work in checking into the various school libraries in our system to see what their collection looks like, for example, just to check out what the libraries' situations are like right now in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's not an audit-type process that we undertake, nor do we have specific reporting

requirements from the ministry. We do, in our broader accountability framework, have…. Where we seem to have interaction with public school libraries is through the district review teams process, which I think we've canvassed a little bit in estimates — the purpose of the district review teams. They're essentially a peer review that goes in to look at a district and what it's doing across a broad range of areas. In the context of doing that, they look at a random sampling of a number of schools. While they're not required to look specifically at the library, they would certainly respond to any concerns raised within a district — really from any individual or group — about a school library, in the context of the district review team.

J. Kwan: I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. I'm not talking about an audit-type of review, not in the strict sense of an audit. The minister sort of alluded to having people go in there, and while they're looking at the school districts' many, many issues, they might go and check out the library and stuff.

I'm actually talking about something very specific, and that is to look at the condition of school library collections to see how current they are, what kind of resources they have. That's the kind of review I'm talking about. Is there anybody in the ministry undertaking that kind of work?

J. Kwan: Well, then I would argue and urge the minister to do that work. That is one of the recommendations from this report: that Ministries of Education review and redress the deteriorating condition of school library collections.

I'll be prepared to accept this if after this review the minister comes back and says, "You know what? I don't know what that member is talking about. Our libraries are well stocked, and their resources are up to date," and so on and so forth. I'll accept that, if you say a review has been done. I would argue that it should be an independent review to find out the lay of the land so that we can assess what the situation is like.

Maybe all this talk and this report in fact… Maybe it will prove that the folks who wrote this report don't know what they're talking about in British Columbia — that our libraries, in fact, are doing very well. For example, on the one piece that we can evaluate, which would be the question of the libraries' collections, I would argue that it would be an important fact-finding mission for the ministry. Why do I say that? Because it will give the minister credibility when he rises in the House to say: "Well, not just the libraries I visited but in fact an independent review of our libraries has shown this. These are the facts they have been able to put forward."

In that case, I would then withdraw my comments about the sorry situation that school libraries are faced with today in terms of reduction in resources both in the staffing side as well as the collection side. Would the minister consider such a review?

Hon. T. Christensen: Within the ministry we have a number of choices to make in terms of where we apply our resources. That's not where I would choose to divert resources to at this point — to undertaking that type of review.

J. Kwan: I would make the argument that if there are good intentions from the government to address this notion of literacy, if there are good intentions from this government through its throne speech that they would look at the textbooks in terms of access to textbooks for students in the classroom, one would extend that review into libraries. One would actually make the commitment and investment of providing resources in libraries.

If you don't do the groundwork to check out what the lay of the land is with school libraries in terms of the conditions and their collections, then I would say the minister is remiss and this government is remiss in trying to address the very issue they say they want to fight, and that is to fight against illiteracy. You can't go in blindly to do work by claiming that here's the goal you want to achieve when you actually don't do some basic work to find out where you're at.

The report, and I trust that the individual who wrote this report, who's done the research…. It was actually funded by the federal government, the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is some credence to this report. I don't think they just made it up. I think they did some research, and there's a whole bunch of references and so on that they refer to in the report. Part of that recommendation is to redress the deteriorating condition of school library collections, to do this review so we can find out what the lay of the land is. I would urge the minister to consider that; otherwise the work that the minister's doing leads one to challenge the government's credibility and the government's supposed intention of wanting to address literacy and yet not putting in the efforts that are required.

Let me ask the minister another question. Currently, is there a level of standard that would apply to school libraries and their collections?

Hon. T. Christensen: There aren't current standards, and we typically don't have standards in respect of the input. What we're concerned with is the output, which is student achievement, and that's certainly where we have standards.

We continue to focus our efforts in terms of monitoring and ensuring accountability of school districts on that output side of the equation — the results school districts are getting in providing quality education to the students that attend schools within their particular district — rather than establishing a bunch of upfront standards that may or may not be appropriate for a particular district, again, recognizing the needs of dis-

tricts to have flexibility and autonomy in deciding how to best meet that output goal of improved student achievement.

J. Kwan: Yes, the minister likes to say: "Well, what we deal with is of course student outcomes, and that's the thing we're interested in. It's not the input but the outputs that we're interested in." Well, here's information that has been put forward that links those two things — the input and the output.

The report restated the fact that the research dating back to the 1930s has demonstrated that school libraries and teacher-librarians have a very positive effect on student achievement, and most recent research has demonstrated significant correlations between school library, subject learning and literacy. A direct quote from the report states: "…policy-makers have been heeding a mounting body of research evidence showing a strong and compelling link between student achievement and the presence of well-stocked, properly funded and professional-developed school library programs and services." I've read parts of the highlights in the 1990s findings where there's a direct relationship in terms of improvements with library support and student achievement, particularly in relation to the reading aspect of student achievement.

Given that the output is exactly what the minister claims he wants to see, exactly what this government says they want to see — it's been highlighted in the throne speech as a major goal to achieve — wouldn't it make sense, then, to fund or support the input, and that would be the resources that yield the output, which would be enhanced student achievement in reading and other levels as well? Maybe I'm just simple-minded, but it seems to me there is logic here in terms of that link. The recommendation — and I think it is an important one, so I just want to put it up for the minister's consideration, clear of politics — is to set standards for school library collections, for their maintenance and for enhancement so that we at least have a sense that the school libraries that are out there have a basic level of standards that would be met to benefit the students.

It's not about politics. It's about engaging in best practices, doing some research around best practices, putting them forward and advancing those in the school system, setting up some basic levels and providing some basic funding dedicated for that purpose so that we can see incremental increases and enhancement over time that would yield the kind of output that the minister is talking about. I would urge the minister to look at the recommendations in this report seriously and to consider the point that I have made seriously.

K. Manhas: I'd like to ask a couple of questions around some of the performance and some of the future plans for the school district 43, particularly in my area in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam.

The school district 43 profile for 2002-03 came out recently. It's shown that student enrolment has been in decline since 2001, and it's forecast to drop by 1,100 students between now and 2012. My first question to the minister is: does this factor in a growth in the Burke Mountain area, where there's a planned development in its first phase of 24,000 new residents?

Hon. T. Christensen: Eleven hundred is quite a number of years out — as I think the member said, 2012 — so there's a good chance those projections will change, obviously, as that time gets closer. What we do when we're looking at projections is we look at a couple of different things. One is B.C. Stats projection — and look at the numbers. I don't know specifically how B.C. Stats comes to their numbers, but they are numbers that they would revise in respect of new developments, I expect, once the development's actually underway, or perhaps they may even wait until it's complete.

On the capital side, which is more critical when we're planning infrastructure in the school districts — for the schools, for example — we'll certainly look at what B.C. Stats is telling us. But we'll also rely on the numbers that the school board is providing to us so that a school board that's aware of a new development and is proposing to build a new school because of that development…. Obviously, we'll look at the numbers they're giving us and their projections and make some judgments around those. It's a combination of projections that are there.

K. Manhas: One of the problems we had in the last ten years as the Coquitlam, Tri-City area has developed was…. As new developments were built into place, such as Westwood Plateau, schools were not built until the need for new students actually existed. What that meant is that new families and new kids moved into the area, and the existing schools were overcrowded until the limit was reached, which warranted a new school to open.

One of the concerns that I have and that residents who live in Port Coquitlam have is that right at the border the Burke Mountain development will be started now, over the next couple of years, and the schools in Port Coquitlam are the most crowded in all of the Tri-Cities. What I'd like to ask the minister is: are there any plans to start building some schools now so that we're not waiting for the kids in the seats for the schools to actually be built? The first consideration is

the priority of a secondary school on Burke Mountain as well as an elementary school on Burke Mountain, as the elementary schools in the area are also up to the limit.

Hon. T. Christensen: I want to clarify that the ministry will actually approve the construction of school districts based on projections. If it's an elementary school, we're looking at enrolment projections two years out; if it's a secondary school, we're looking at three years out; and if it's a site acquisition, which is obviously the first step in building anything, we're actually looking at five years out in terms of allocating capital dollars.

We get that information in from school districts around the province, and they put forward their proposals for either a site purchase or the construction of an elementary or secondary school. We rank those, based on a good number of factors, and then fund them within the available capital funding. In terms of where we're at now, we are just working on finalizing the capital plan — in fact, the three-year capital plan — to announce later this spring.

K. Manhas: That's great to hear the proactive stance of the ministry. The onus, then, will rely now on the school district to put out the plans for what their capital priorities are for growth and development and to plan those out and give them to you. We'll look forward to the school district ensuring that the infrastructure is there for students.

My next question deals with apprenticeships. In the school district 43 profile, the performance results show that apprenticeships have come down in the last five years from 12 to five in the last three years combined. That's not true in every single school district. In West Van, in fact, it's growing. My question to the minister is: is there anything the ministry can do to increase apprenticeships and trades training in every district? Is there anything the ministry can do to encourage the school district in Coquitlam to increase its focus on trades training and apprenticeship?

Hon. T. Christensen: I share the member's concern where we see any declining focus on apprenticeship or skills training. We are looking at how we can better encourage expansion of those programs. Part of it is certainly encouraging districts to be responsive to what is being identified as local priorities, because we have seen some districts that have put a very concerted effort on apprenticeships. There are a number of districts that are actually even just I think in the preliminary stages of recognizing the challenge and trying to figure out how they can go forward.

I certainly look forward to working with those districts to see how we can best foster additional opportunities around secondary school apprenticeships or exposing kids that are in our high schools to options around skills and trades training. I'm doing that in discussions with the Ministry of Advanced Education, obviously given their responsibility in that area, as well as looking at it in the context of an overall human resource strategy for the government.

We know there's a growing need to be training people in those areas. It's my belief that the K-to-12 sector can play a critical role there. The short answer is that there's considerable work to be done.

K. Manhas: In recent weeks and months school vandalism has certainly been an issue that has been coming up time and time again in my community. Vandalism has been reported to cost school district 43 just over $200,000 in repairs last year alone. Recently a suspected arson case during spring break at Eagle Ridge Elementary on March 17 was anticipated to cost in excess of $500,000 to repair.

The city of Port Coquitlam has been quite proactive in dealing with certain cases of vandalism in and around the city, particularly with cases of graffiti and other types of vandalism. They've subscribed to the broken windows theory of dealing with it the same day or the day after in order to stem the growth of new graffiti, which has started to work. The problem is that the school district hasn't subscribed to the same theory, particularly during the summer months when a lot of the vandalism happens.

I guess my question is: is there anything the minister could do to encourage the schools to use this type of proactive method of dealing with vandalism and, therefore, decreasing the amount of issues that we see around vandalism in the Port Coquitlam area?

Hon. T. Christensen: Vandalism certainly is a scourge against schools that varies from one district to another. Hopefully, we can all foster a respect for schools that reflects their importance in our communities. Ultimately, school districts manage the buildings within their district, and they have the responsibility to deal with vandalism, whether in a proactive manner or in a reactive manner in terms of making the repairs once vandalism has occurred.

I would suggest to the member that he discuss it with his school district and point them to the strategies adopted by his municipality that have proven successful, because I would expect that the school district is interested in minimizing the cost of vandalism. If the local broader community has had particular success in approaching it in a certain manner, given that it's the same community, I would expect that the school district would have that same success. It's important that the district learn from the community that surrounds it.

K. Manhas: I understand that the opposition has several questions, and there are other questions to be made, so I'm just going to make a reference to…. I have a number of questions I would like to forward to the minister — specifically, questions that have been raised with me by teachers who have come up to me and made comments concerning the amount of time the IEP program takes to administer for each of their students

and the time allotted within their work schedule to be able to do that, as well as funding for performing arts in schools and methods of better connecting the schools to the communities around them and connecting kids to individuals in the community and to the greater community around them and vice versa.

Last year I started an initiative called Youth Matters! based on asset-building, and that has started taking hold quite strongly. In fact, the students in the student leadership council have started using asset-building and promoting it amongst their peers as well as the community at large. This is a very real issue that I think we'll be facing in the years ahead — how to better connect our kids in the schools to the opportunities and the realities of what's happening in their community. I hope that's something the minister can look into and create strategies for in the future.

Hon. T. Christensen: I just want to respond briefly to that, because I think the member raises an important point in terms of making that connection to the broader community. The member and I have discussed it casually and relatively briefly a couple of times, but I'd certainly welcome his input and that of his community, in terms of how we better make those links between what is our school community and the broader community that surrounds it, because there is some key work there that we could focus on.

J. Kwan: I have about two or three other areas which I don't think should be too long in terms of canvassing questions, although my estimate has been off every time. Hopefully, that won't happen on matters relating to budget items.

J. Kwan: It's my last chance. We'll see whether or not we can wrap up by 9 o'clock.

Okay. The area I'd like to canvass with the minister about would be moneys spent on education advertising in British Columbia. The Liberal government had promised not to waste taxpayers' money on promoting health care and education through advertisements. There has been advertising on education funding that we know of, including four separate full-page ads in the dailies and the community papers. The government has also spent money on its Achieve B.C. initiative, a program that consists mainly of a computer portal and booklets.

My first question, of course, to the minister is: how much money was spent on advertising for education?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't provide the member with that. No money was spent from the Ministry of Education's budget on either the Achieve B.C. initiative or on any advertising related to education. The focus of our budget is to get dollars to school districts to deliver programming.

I would note, however — and the member raised Achieve B.C. — that I have found that to be a very valuable resource and would encourage citizens of the province to look at it and explore it in terms of the information it provides on that whole continuum of lifelong learning, right from the earliest of…. Well, in fact, I know there's advice there on prenatal care right through to lifelong learning. It does certainly cover a broad length of time in each of our lives.

It has some good advice and some good reference material, and it acts as a bit of a referral to where people can get additional information, depending on where they're at in their lives and the types of things they're looking at in respect of learning — whether that's learning to be a strong parent or learning to assist their kids in their K-to-12 schooling. We're looking at opportunities that may be available after you finish grade 12. The Achieve B.C. website is actually a real wealth of information, and because it does cover a broad range of government responsibilities, it's not within the Ministry of Education.

J. Kwan: So there's no budget on advertising from the Minister of Education's budget. The advertisements that appear in the papers out there — that budget comes from where? The Premier's budget?

Hon. T. Christensen: Yes, that's within the public affairs bureau, which is within the Premier's budget.

J. Kwan: And the minister has no idea how much money is taken out of that budget, out of the public affairs bureau, toward advertising for education. Does the minister have no say in the advertisements that come out of the Premier's budget?

Hon. T. Christensen: I as minister and the ministry will respond to requests for information from the public affairs bureau, but we don't direct them in terms of the work they are doing. Questions in terms of those expenditures are likely better dealt with in terms of the Premier's estimates.

J. Kwan: Just so I can sort out the relationship here with this ministry on advertising issues in relation to the Premier's office, no money comes from the ministry's budget and no say, it appears to me — am I correct in understanding? — from the minister or the ministry on what advertising gets put out from the public affairs bureau or how much money is put toward advertising in education through the public affairs bureau.

Hon. T. Christensen: I wouldn't characterize it as having no say. It's more a process of conferring with one another about what information should be provided, for example, around the Achieve B.C. booklets. There's a range of them, but one of them is the K-to-12 sector. This ministry had relatively extensive involvement around the development of that booklet, because the information in it needed to deal with the K-to-12

sector, and we likely had involvement with some of the others in terms of crossover information.

We can certainly make suggestions to the Premier's office and the public affairs bureau in terms of information we feel should be out there, but we have no decision-making ability in terms of that budget or no ultimate, I guess…. We don't get the final decision in terms of whether those dollars are spent.

J. Kwan: So the minister or the ministry does not sign off on the advertising on education. All of that goes through the Premier, the Premier's office and the public affairs bureau. Am I understanding this correctly?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Education doesn't make the spending decision. We certainly will approve content to make sure it's accurate, but we don't make the spending decision.

J. Kwan: That may be because the minister is recent to his job. It's not a slight; it's just a timing question — right? My question is: whether it's this minister or other ministers, is the minister asked to sign off on the ads?

Hon. T. Christensen: To the best of my knowledge, I as minister wouldn't be asked to sign off. I can check on that and let the member know, but the role of the Ministry of Education has been more one of being involved in any discussions. My interest, certainly, is in ensuring that the content is relevant and factual and is of use to the public. That's more the role I see for the Ministry of Education around any advertising: ensuring that the information we're providing is accurate.

J. Kwan: Does the minister support putting taxpayers' dollars toward advertising — even though I know that the funding doesn't come from this ministry, that it comes from the Premier's office — specifically, now, around education?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think there's a delicate balance to be achieved in any sort of government advertising. That's certainly what I believe the government has achieved around advertising. That is, it's a balance of providing information to the public, whom we all serve, whom the government serves — information that's relevant to the public around issues that the public is concerned about. Certainly, in my experience as an MLA the issues that the public is most interested in on a continuing scale are health care and education, and those are areas where some dollars have been spent to provide information to the public.

All governments have to struggle with where you find that balance of spending those dollars to provide relevant information, and I think the government has done a good job of providing relevant and timely information to the public and, at the same time, not making the advertising political in nature. It's more to provide information so that the public can judge a situation and where their taxpayer dollars are being spent.

J. Kwan: You know, the Liberal government actually campaigned on — and against, I should say — spending taxpayers' money on advertising. In fact, when they were in opposition, they used to go after the previous administration in a very vicious way around advertising. Now the Liberal Party is in government. They are spending taxpayers' dollars on advertising — hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars spent on advertising. I believe that the Minister of Health actually admitted on record that the advertising in the area of health is $19 million out of the public affairs bureau, the Premier's office.

The minister here, in Education, says he doesn't know how much money is being spent for education. Can he find out?

Hon. T. Christensen: There's no money being spent from the Ministry of Education budget. We've established that. The member may want to canvass those specific questions in the budget estimates where that particular budget item is included.

J. Kwan: I would expect, though, given that this minister actually signs…. Well, no. I'm sorry. This ministry approves the content to make sure that whatever content is put out in these ads is correct. Ministry staff and budget funded by the ministry to do that work come out of this ministry, so there is a relationship directly linked to that advertising out of the public affairs bureau. Surely the minister can find out how much money is being spent each year, year over year, in the area of advertising.

I can tell the minister this. In the Michael Smyth column dated January 18, 2004, he estimates that the government spends about $1.2 million on education advertising. Through an FOI request we have learned, through the BCTF, who made the request…. They learned that the provincial government spent about $545,000 for advertising on education funding levels, and a total of approximately $954,000 was spent to advertise for the Achieve B.C. initiative. Those are just two initiatives in terms of where those funding dollars were placed. Surely this minister can find out through government, from the Premier's budget item, how much money is dedicated for the purposes of advertising in the area of education.

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't speak to another set of estimates. I'm prepared to speak to the Ministry of Education estimates, and I've indicated that there's no

The member is correct in the sense that ministry staff will confer to provide information. They do that in a whole range of areas, and certainly, the ministry's budget is not broken down in that respect. I would note that I think the government has been very conservative in the advertising that is related to education.

Particularly, advertising around Achieve B.C. has been critical advertising in terms of informing the public about the availability of additional information they can access to ensure that they're aware of means of helping them with the process of lifelong learning. I think Achieve B.C. is a very positive development in terms of bringing together a range of information relevant to learning. I strongly commend the Premier for the Achieve B.C. initiative and for the foresight to be trying to bring together all of these areas of learning across government to one location that is accessible to the public. To then spend a little bit of money to let the public know that it exists seems to me to be an appropriate expenditure and certainly, in the grand context of government, a minimal expenditure.

With respect to specific dollars spent, the member has the opportunity to ask the question in the relevant budget estimates, and she may want to do that.

J. Kwan: Well, it's interesting — the minister's answer. A couple of things. One is that he says that the Achieve B.C. advertising is well worth his money. The minister said he didn't know how much it cost. He didn't know what the amount was.

J. Kwan: It's true. I put the amount on the record. I don't know if that's the correct amount. I was asking how much was spent, so if it's about a million bucks, the minister's saying: "Hey, that's worth its value in return."

So the minister supports advertising. Yet the minister does not even want to pursue trying to find out within government how much money is spent on advertising — money that could go directly into the education budget that would benefit students directly in the classroom. Instead of checking it out and saying, "Hey, how much money is being spent out there? Where is it being spent?" the minister has said he has no approval authority on these ads. It just comes out of the Premier's office. But he's the Minister of Education. He has to approve the content. He gets to look at these ads before they get put out. He could be that advocate and say, "Hey, wait a minute. Why are we spending a million bucks on advertising?" as one example in one particular program. We don't know what other programs there are.

Yes, of course we'll canvass these issues with the Premier. But you know what? I would suggest other colleagues take a lead from the Minister of Health. You know, he says the budget doesn't come out of his ministry; it comes out of other areas. He was on record, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, to put something like $19 million on advertising for health.

I suspect that because a lot of these kind of media relations initiatives have now been wrapped under the Premier's office and controlled by the Premier's office, the budget items therefore are now shifted to the Premier's office. But it does not mean that ministers should just step back and say: "Hey, you know, I don't have any role in that, because the boss gets to decide."

That does not serve British Columbians well. It doesn't serve the children well. I would go so far as to say it doesn't serve the minister well in that I would think the minister would want to know exactly how much money his government is spending on, in my view, frivolous advertising — moneys that could go directly into supporting children in the classroom, moneys that could go directly into outcomes, as the minister continuously likes to talk about. He doesn't talk about input, but he says: "We like to talk about outputs." Well, those moneys could yield outputs that the minister claims that he's trying to realize and that he wants to see the students, the children, in British Columbia achieve.

Of course, given that so far I must say the minister's been very responsive in wanting to provide information and seeking information that he may not have, I find it surprising that the minister now on this question does not want to go and find out, even if not for the opposition's sake but for his own sake, how much money is spent on advertising from his own government. I would think the minister would be interested in doing that.

J. Kwan: The minister says he'll be happy to answer the question. Let me put the question to minister again: will he find out how much money is spent on advertising throughout government in the area of education and advise the opposition of that information?

Hon. T. Christensen: I've tried to be cooperative with the member opposite, and I have on a number of occasions said the ministry will gather additional information. In all those cases, I believe it's been information that this ministry is responsible for. The member has an opportunity, as estimates continue with other ministries, to get the information she seeks. I'm saying that it's not a case of me not wanting to know; it's a case of I don't have that information available. The information is readily available in other estimates, and the member has that opportunity to get the information.

I will assure the member of this, though. I am interested in those sorts of expenditures. Certainly, as I am minister, when I'm asked to provide comment on advertising initiatives and whether they should go forward, those are questions I'll ask. What does the advertising cost? I'll look at the content of the advertising,

and I'll provide my comments as a member of executive council and as a member of the government on whether those are reasonable expenditures in terms of the information being provided and how best we can provide information that is relevant to the public. That, certainly in my view, is the sole reason that the government has spent some money on advertising — money that is considerably less than was spent by that member's government when she sat around the cabinet table.

I've recognized and tried to acknowledge to the member that it is a delicate balance in terms of providing information to the public and spending those dollars. I think that's something the member is well aware of from when she sat around the cabinet table. Moving forward, as I sit around the cabinet table I'm certainly going to always be cognizant of where government is spending money and always provide comment, whether it's on advertising or in other areas, as to how we allocate dollars.

J. Kwan: If the minister says that he actually cares about how much money is spent on education advertising and that he contributes to those kinds of debates, then the minister should have no trouble whatsoever in getting that information. No, he would not commit to that, and it does kind of raise the question: why not? He says: "Oh, it has nothing to do with my ministry." That's not true. It has everything to do with the ministry and everything to do with the mandate given to this minister around education. Don't tell me that funding spent on education advertising has nothing to do with the Education ministry. If it has nothing to do with education, then why is the government spending that money? The minister is admitting right now that the government is spending money to do image improvement for the purposes of advertising. It is not there to enhance education in any way, shape or form.

I can only hazard a guess that the minister is reluctant…. Actually, he's refusing to go and find out how much money is spent on advertising, because the budget is spent from his boss. Maybe it's worrisome. Maybe that actually speaks to the character of the Premier from the point of view of the controlling aspect of what goes on in the Premier's office. Even though the matters are relevant to the minister, the minister is reluctant — hesitant — and is refusing to access this information that is absolutely pertinent, in my view, to the Ministry of Education. It does beg the question: why such reluctance and refusal to do so?

We will canvass those questions with the Premier in the Premier's estimates. I will quote the minister's statements to the Premier and try and get that information to see exactly how much money is spent in the area of advertising.

Let me now turn to another area, the seismic safety and upgrading issues. On June 26, 2003, the government announced that it would invest an additional $8.1 million for seismic upgrading; 23 schools in eight districts within high-risk earthquake zones will receive funding. There was a press release and backgrounder that was released by the government. In October 2003 the former Minister of Education announced that a review was being initiated provincewide of school seismic safety.

Along with the June 26, 2003, announcement of $1.8 million for seismic upgrading, can the minister tell me how much the seismic assessment is costing?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member referred to an $8.1 million figure, which was announced June 26, 2003; then she later referred to $1.8 million. I think she meant the same figure.

Hon. T. Christensen: It is in fact $8.1 million. That was announced last June and has been spent through this last year from operating fund budgets for a number of relatively — in the context of renovation-type budgets — small projects in a number of school districts throughout the province. I can provide the member with a list of those if she wishes, but she may have that. Beyond that, we're just now working on the capital projects moving forward, and we certainly acknowledge that there's a significant need there in terms of seismic upgrades.

One of the positive developments, certainly from my perspective, is that we've developed a very good working relationship between the ministry and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists to develop an improved assessment tool. In fact, it's an assessment tool that I understand is being developed at the University of British Columbia, is unique to some of the seismic considerations that are at play in British Columbia and in fact may be something that can then be exported to other parts of the world. It's truly a B.C.–developed project. Both the engineers and ourselves think it's going to put us in a much better position to assess and prioritize projects, because unfortunately, you can't do them all at the same time. Having said that, while that is being developed — and we're hopeful that'll be completed through this summer — we're not just sitting by and saying we're not going to do anything.

There have been a number of seismic funding commitments through since 2001, totalling just under $42 million in terms of projects that are moving forward. In this year's capital plan, as we finalize that, it's my expectation that there will certainly be additional seismic upgrading projects that will continue to go forward.

As we finalize this assessment tool and get the work done around those assessments…. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 to 800 schools require additional assessment. As that proceeds it will put us in a

very good position moving through to 2006-07, where certainly our intention would be to have an additional $50 million in the capital budget in that year to ensure that a good number of these projects actually have shovels in the ground and are moving forward with expediency.

Hon. T. Christensen: There's a current standard tool that we're using when we're working…. There are a number of tools that are available, but we're working with APEG to have some agreement among the engineering community as to what the most appropriate tool to be using right now is.

Assessments will proceed with that tool. We're very near to having some agreement there. Assessments will proceed with that tool as early as mid-May and through the summer so that we're not just….

Hon. T. Christensen: May of this year and proceeding through this summer, so we know that we're continuing to plan work.

We are expecting this new state-of-the-art tool sometime this fall. Part of developing that tool…. We'll be able to cross-reference the results of the assessment using that new tool versus the current standard tool and ensure that the priorities match up in terms of the effectiveness of both tools, for that matter.

It's not a case of waiting till the fall and this new tool arrives before we start looking at the projects that must go forward as soon as possible. It's a case of both tracks moving forward at the same time as we do some of the planning work to make sure some of these projects go ahead sooner rather than later.

J. Kwan: How much money is the minister or ministry setting aside for assessment costs?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, we expect there is somewhere in the range of 600 to 800 schools that need to still be assessed, and the approximate cost per school is $3,000. We're looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of likely $2 million to $3 million. We expect to fund that from the operating funding available through the annual capital grant, that $133 million that I referred to earlier under the public schools subvote. Certainly, the funding is available to go ahead with these assessments.

J. Kwan: All the schools will be assessed, then, under this funding pocket of $133 million capital grant?

Hon. T. Christensen: Not every school in the province, because we have some schools in the province that are in areas that nobody expects any relevant seismic activity. Certainly, we're basing it on what the science tells us or the district. Certainly, it's the lower mainland districts, Vancouver Island districts and the coastal districts that are all the ones that are subject to seismic concerns.

J. Kwan: The 600 to 800 schools that require it would be assessed, and the time line is May with some tools that are now in play, and some other tools that are being worked on would come into play sometime in the fall. Then presumably once that other tool comes into play in the fall…. Is it safe to assume that by the next fiscal year all of the 600 to 800 schools would have been assessed?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, we expect that the assessments will be complete through this fiscal year. We're hopeful and optimistic that most of them, if not all of them, will be completed by sometime this fall. The information that is gathered in those assessments can then be fed into the second assessment tool, so it's not a case of going out and visiting the school again. The original assessment actually allows you to gather the information that you can then feed into the second assessment model. "Model" is probably a better word than "tool."

What that will allow the ministry to do is look at how the existing tool sort of sets out the priorities and how that, then, correlates with the priorities of the new assessment tool and, if there are situations where they don't correlate, go and figure out what more needs to be looked at in those particular schools. All of that information then puts us in a strong position, moving into next year, to be looking at the priorities of where we spend capital dollars for seismic upgrades moving forward.

J. Kwan: It sounds to me as if to say that by May sometime, as these other assessment models are being utilized…. Then the new model will be complete in the fall — right? There are two sets of models being used here. I guess the analogy I'm going to put is sort of like this. You're doing a house renovation, so you go and get one estimate from one company, then you go and get another estimate from another company, then you sort of put the two together to see how it all fits and whether or not there are differences and, if there are differences, what they are. Then you figure it out from there and then decide on what your overall renovation plan is going to be.

J. Kwan: Okay. Sorry; I'm not quite getting it, then. Are schools getting assessed twice, then, with different models? It sounds to me like that's what's happening.

Hon. T. Christensen: I recognize the challenge in the discussion. I perhaps haven't explained it terribly clearly. Part of the challenge around doing seismic work is that the science and the engineering are con-

tinually evolving. The ministry has found situations where seismic work had been done to a certain standard and then, later, the engineers were saying that's not a sufficient standard, because the rules or the standards had changed.

Part of the challenge at this point is the discussion with the engineering community to come to an agreement as to what in fact needs to be done and how we go out and access a particular school building or some other public building — or any building for that matter — and determine what needs to be done to bring it up to the most appropriate standard, given the potential seismic activity and the geology and all those other wonderful things that engineers understand and that we live with in this part of the province.

The current work today with the professional engineers is to try and get some agreement — and we think we're close — on what the current standard is and then to go out and gather information about public schools in the coming weeks and months through this summer, based on the requirements of that current standard. There is also agreement with the engineering community, though, that there isn't a sort of ideal current standard. That's the reason for the work on this new standard that's expected to be completed this fall.

We want to go ahead and do work in terms of gathering information under the current standard now because we don't want to wait until the fall, but we recognize that this new tool that's expected in the fall will actually be a better assessment tool. We will use the information we gathered through the summer months and then feed that information into the new assessment tool, and we'll end up with what we expect will be the best overall result in terms of identifying what it is we need to do, where we need to do it and how to prioritize those projects based on the greatest need.

J. Kwan: Once the assessment is complete, can the minister tell me what sort of time frame we are looking at for the ministry to actually bring the buildings up to proper standards?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can't give a specific time commitment at this point, because we don't have the results of the assessment. Certainly, my expectation is that once we have the information that will be made available through this summer, that will put us, as government, in a good position to then be looking at how we tackle this challenge and how we ensure that we're doing it in a timely manner. I don't think anybody would suggest that sitting back and not doing anything is appropriate. The challenge is certainly one of saying okay, once you've got the information, how do you go forward? I, as minister, will certainly be making an argument to move forward as quickly as we can to address the challenge of ensuring that all schools are upgraded to the most appropriate standard for seismic quality.

J. Kwan: I understand that the minister says he doesn't have all the information, so it's hard to anticipate what that time frame might look like to address these issues. Something like ten, 15, 20 years — is that a reasonable time frame to look at some of these items? I know, for example, that Seattle actually has as high a risk, if not higher risk, than we do. They put forward a ten-year time line, and they actually achieved that ten-year time line in terms of seismic upgrade — as one example to cite of another jurisdiction. No jurisdictions are ever exactly the same, but one close to home that we can compare is Seattle, for example. So is a ten- or 15-year time frame a reasonable time frame?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's desire to have some framework around that. I don't have a good idea of what that time frame will be. It's dependent on a number of factors, as I'm sure the member will acknowledge. One of those factors is the planning necessary in terms of school districts, identifying how they want to move forward with it. That is certainly not an insurmountable obstacle, but it is something that requires discussion between the ministry and school districts in terms of the planning process to undertake some of these projects. It really is, overall, a function of what projects are identified and the priority that is placed on those projects by this assessment exercise.

I can assure the member that I will certainly, in looking at the information that's presented this fall, be ambitious in the time line I will be seeking to try and get this challenge addressed.

J. Kwan: Am I right in assuming — and I've made the assumption that the dollars for the assessment, the $2 million to $3 million that the minister advised — that those moneys do not take away from education dollars? In other words, those are new moneys that were meant to be for assessment or capital improvement and such.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's part of the ongoing capital planning that the ministry does as part of the annual capital grants that are within that public school subvote within the Ministry of Education. The annual capital grant line, that $133 million, is increased from what it was last year. There's a small increase of a little over $2 million in terms of what was categorized as the ACG last year versus this year.

That amount of money — because the vast majority of those dollars are sent directly out to districts and they then decide how they want to spend them — hasn't changed last year to this year. Just the portion of it and the way the ministry spends their part of it can be adjusted to allow us to focus on this seismic challenge.

J. Kwan: It wouldn't be the case, for example, that a second-storey addition to Grandview Elementary School would not be going ahead for capital improvements. It wouldn't be the case that dollars which might have been slated for that school have been taken away because of budget pressures elsewhere.

Hon. T. Christensen: No approved project would be stopped to divert funding to a seismic project. Those approved projects will continue. Certainly, if there are specific projects that the member is interested in, we can endeavour to provide that information, if she wants to give us the details around those. I don't know if we can canvass them here. It may be that we need to go and find some additional information for you around the annual capital grants.

J. Kwan: Actually, the only information I have — from parents, of course — is that the second-storey renovation that was slated for the school is not going ahead, so any further information the minister might have regarding that school would be greatly appreciated.

Let me just wrap up, then, the seismic upgrading issue with this information for the minister, and the minister might have it already. This is a letter from the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, and it was written to the minister on October 31, 2003 — that is, the former minister. Just to highlight some of the content that they raised with the former minister around seismic upgrading…. The letter was also written to the Premier as well as the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance. It says:

It is much longer than that. I just sort of highlighted some passages which I thought would be important. The minister might have read the letter already, might have seen the letter already at some point in time, but in case he hadn't, I wanted to bring that letter to the minister's attention and urge the minister to expedite his work around this.

I presume that after September, when the minister has this new tool, he could match up with this other tool in trying to figure out what the lay of the land is on seismic needs and, hopefully, agreement from the experts out there about what is safe, standardized application there. We would then get a sense of what the time line would be with respect to seismic upgradings in schools. I look forward to receiving that information from the minister.

My last area that I would like to canvass with the Minister of Education is around school safety. On March 22, 2004, the office of the Premier and the Ministry of Education jointly released new standards to help improve student safety. The new standards highlighted in the press releases are:

Now, one will recall that the member for Vancouver-Burrard went on and on and on about this code of conduct and talked about how he was going to advocate particularly for the gay and lesbian community in terms of addressing issues around homophobia, bullying and the like in the school system.

I have to say that many people are very disappointed with the guidelines that came out, for they were not specific in dealing with some of these critical issues. Let me ask the minister this question: what was in place before this code of conduct that was established and announced on March 22, 2004, and how did these standards differ from what existed before?

Hon. T. Christensen: Thanks to the member for the question. The whole direction in terms of school safety in this initiative announced by the Premier in March stemmed from the MLA task force around school safety, which was chaired by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. The three MLAs — the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for Columbia River–

Revelstoke — went to a good number of schools and communities around the province and discussed issues of school safety and bullying with students and teachers and parents. They certainly heard some heart-wrenching stories that all of us would cringe at and would certainly agree reflected incidents that should never happen in our public schools and that none of us would ever want to happen in our public schools — or in any school, for that matter, or in any community.

What they also discovered, though, on the positive side, was that there's some incredibly good work being done in the province. That is work that has been developed over a good number of years by parents and teachers and students, by school districts that have recognized the need to ensure strong work is being done and great efforts are being made to ensure that our students feel safe when they go to school. It was reflective, again, of good work that has been done over a good number of years to look at social responsibility and to ensure that students are aware of the impact of their actions on others and of their place in the broader community.

Given that experience from the MLA task force, both positive and negative, what government looked at was: how do we address the negative and encourage the positive? What the announcement in March was focused on in terms of our safe schools strategy was requiring school districts to develop codes of conduct, recognizing that there are schools and school districts around the province, many of whom have done that but others that hadn't.

Firstly, what is new is that it requires that all school districts look at developing a code of conduct. It allows some flexibility in terms of saying that one code of conduct, perhaps for a large inner-city school, may not be the same as the code of conduct for a small rural school — or a large rural school.

One part of the province is different from another, so the codes of conduct may vary a little bit from one part of the province to another. Recognizing that we also want standards for the codes of conduct, while there might be some variation and there's some flexibility there, a school district isn't allowed to ignore the requirement — not that any of them would — but we have a basic set of standards that we want them to meet in developing their codes of conduct so we do have comfort that the codes of conduct are appropriate regardless of where they are in the province.

Really, to accomplish that, what we're expecting is that school districts will learn from one another, and the ministry will certainly help in trying to provide information around best practices. The key part of the ministry's work in that direction so far has been the guide to safe, caring and orderly schools that was released as part of the March announcement and, really, is a guide that brings together in one spot access to a bunch of resources that had already been prepared in the past.

Finally, beyond the standards and the requirement for codes of conduct was the issue of encouraging reporting of incidents of bullying or other negative incidents. That, quite frankly, was the issue that government struggled with the most in terms of how to encourage that reporting.

There was a strong concern among discussions with the education community that a very strict requirement would drive some of the reporting underground and you just wouldn't hear about it because of the concern about statistics. We listened to some of that concern so that we're working with school districts to encourage them to report in a manner that is reflective of truly what is going on, and that's work that will continue.

The guide to safe, caring and orderly schools and the strategy itself was developed by the Ministry of Education in close consultation with a broad range of education partners, including BCCPAC, the BCTF, the BCSTA, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association and the Superintendents Association — all of our education partners — to ensure that we have something that is effective but also something that's going to work and isn't simply imposing something that districts or individual schools can't appropriately respond to.

J. Kwan: We're talking about safety standards, really, and so therefore, is it fair to say that individual schools and districts are responsible for setting the standards, but really, the onus is on the ministry to provide that leadership role in terms of what those standards should be?

Hon. T. Christensen: The obligation of the individual schools and school districts is to develop the codes of conduct. The standards themselves, which sort of measure what is looked at in terms of those codes of conduct, are provided by the province. They really provide benchmarks.

Some of the benchmarks we're looking at in terms of what we expect codes of conduct to address are, firstly, in terms of the process that all schools involve students, parents and staff in the development of the code of conduct for their school and that schools actively promote and consistently teach behaviour expectations and make those expectations known to all students, parents, school staff and visitors. Certainly, we would expect that codes of conduct reflect these schools' expectations of those different groups of people and, hopefully — well, not hopefully — that those expectations are consistent among different groups.

Certainly, we expect that codes of conduct will clearly specify what forms of behaviour are acceptable as well as what forms are unacceptable and then how disciplinary action is determined. We'll expect as part of the code of conduct that conduct is continuously monitored and that progress is measured and codes of conduct reviewed regularly to ensure improvement.

Those are the broad standards we're expecting codes of conduct to be measured against. What will happen is that over this next period of time, as schools

develop codes of conduct and districts are doing that work, in the district reviews that the ministry and other education partners are involved in and in the accountability contract reviews that the deputy minister and other ministry staff undertake when they are visiting school districts…. Certainly, when I'm in school districts having discussions with them, all of us will be asking questions about: "What are you doing around codes of conduct and trying to ensure that those standards are being met and that schools are focusing on the issue?"

To support all that and where the ministry is providing additional leadership is in the development of Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools: A Guide, which really, as I indicated before, provides an underlying tool to allow schools to do this work of developing codes of conduct. Again, I do want to emphasize that this isn't coming out of left field for school districts or for schools. Many of them have been doing very good work around these types of issues.

What we want to do is ensure that work is shared so that we don't have any schools in the province that don't have appropriate codes of conduct. We want all of them to be actively developing the codes, changing them as necessary and, most importantly, monitoring their progress in addressing safety in their schools so that all students do feel safe when they attend school.

J. Kwan: I'd like to bring a specific matter up with the minister, because various people have brought these concerns to my attention — some by my local constituents and some by local Vancouver media — regarding the March 22 release of the safe schools task force report.

When reading the report, there are a couple of quotes that really stuck out to me on the issue of homophobia in the schools — quotes from Facing our Fears — Accepting Responsibility: Report of the Safe Schools Task Force.

Protecting students from discrimination and maintaining safe environments is, of course, critical to our learning environment. I don't think we're in disagreement about that. However, we still hear too many stories of young gay, lesbian or other queer-identified teens being discriminated against or experiencing violence in our schools. Events like the 2001 beating and death of Aaron Webster in Stanley Park tragically highlight the homophobia and gay-bashing that are all too frequent, in my view, in British Columbia. In addition, a 1999 McCreary Centre Society study showed that 37 percent of gay and lesbian youth in B.C. felt like outsiders at school. Nearly two-thirds often hear homophobic remarks by other students, and 46 percent have tried suicide at least once.

These are major issues. I would have expected and hoped, actually, that this review, this report, would address this issue directly and for the province to take on that kind of leadership role. Here's the problem. Following the safe schools task force, the government had an opportunity to actually take concrete action to deal with homophobia in our schools. Instead, the guide released last month called Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools has been seen as a major letdown to concerned members of the gay and lesbian community particularly.

In fact, let me just put on record parts of a newspaper article from Xtra! West. Here's what parts of it say:

In that context and, of course, in the big fanfare that particularly the member for Vancouver-Burrard went out to do this work as the Chair, to say that this report is a letdown, to say that the report actually didn't provide the leadership that I think many people in the community were hoping for…. Particularly in the area around homophobia, the opportunity was missed.

I'd like to ask the minister the question: are there any plans? Well, no, I shouldn't say that, because obviously the plans have been dashed, because the report is now out. Would the minister agree that to deal with issues around homophobia, to deal with all sorts of discrimination, the government needs to take a leadership role in addressing that and pushing forward and setting out the guidelines around what is acceptable and what is not acceptable? In the instance around homophobia, why didn't the government go further than what was tabled?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the comments of the member, and I recognize the frustration that may be there from the gay and lesbian community, some of whose members would have liked to see, I guess, a very specific and detailed code of conduct that the provincial government would impose on school districts.

Let's be clear — and the member and I certainly don't disagree at all on this: discrimination within our schools on any grounds is wholly unacceptable. That certainly includes any elements of homophobia. Those are unacceptable behaviours within our schools.

What we have done, rather than trying to dictate from Victoria very specific standards of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, is said that it's critically important that those be elements of codes of conduct. That's why determining acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within schools, regardless of the motivation for the behaviour, is an important element of developing a code of conduct.

I certainly believe that part of the value of the approach we've taken in terms of requiring schools to develop codes of conduct and the province setting standards we're requiring to be reflected in those codes of conduct is that the school community is involved in the development of the code of conduct and that issues like homophobia, like discrimination on a range of grounds, like bullying — and what, in fact, constitutes bullying — can all be discussed by the school community in the context of developing their code of conduct. It is that discussion that is important to having a code of conduct that is actually then going to work.

We can develop some pretty prescriptive codes here in Victoria and send them out around the province, and we can use a number of methods at our disposal to try and ensure that those codes are being adhered to. I don't think that would be a terribly successful approach. I think if schools are given a set of standards, a set of expectations, a requirement to develop a code of conduct within the school that reflects those standards so that schools then have that conversation, the exercise in and of itself is going to go a long way to addressing the goal of having safe, caring schools that are inclusive of all students that go there.

I think we've taken the right approach to doing this. I recognize, certainly, that the member and others may disagree with that approach. I can tell the member that the response the ministry and I have received to this initiative has been very, very positive, that the way we have moved forward with this has been done in strong consultation with our education partners — those who work in the education system on a day-to-day basis — and that I'm very proud of the work that's been done both by the ministry and by the MLA task force in this regard. I expect that this is work that will prove to have considerable value in the months and years ahead as schools go through the exercise of developing these codes of conduct.

J. Kwan: Here's the problem. There needs to be leadership from the province and, I think, from this minister. Clear direction is needed to protect students, and I just want to highlight another comment on this issue.

The Victoria school board brought in their new policy in June 2003 that has very clear language around discrimination and homophobia. I believe the minister knows what those were. A couple of highlighted points include supporting social justice clubs and gay-straight alliances, as well as the development of codes of conduct to forbid discrimination on the basis of gender, identity or sexual orientation.

After the policy was announced, an organization called Focus on the Family (Canada) criticized the district. Derek Rogusky with Focus on the Family said: "Certainly schools should be safe places for all children, but we need to ensure that educators are not promoting certain lifestyles and values under the guise of tolerance." I bring this forward only because it highlights some of the views out there that are working against developing anti-discrimination and anti-homophobic policies. It highlights the fact that leadership at the provincial level is actually required if the ministry is unwilling to provide clear direction to the boards.

It isn't about dictating to the boards what they should or should not do. We're talking about safety for students and the safe environment, and then setting out those standards is important. The board needs to understand that these standards are expected to be adhered to. After all, these are our basic human rights. That's what they are, and that's how they should be

If the minister and the government are unwilling to provide clear direction to the boards, then how can one contemplate or understand or explain to the gay and lesbian community or students outside of Victoria and Vancouver school districts that they can access safe environments within their schools? Without those kinds of guidelines that are explicit, how can we make those students feel safe when already there is so much hidden fear, really, amongst the gay and lesbian community?

I think it is most unfortunate that the government missed this opportunity. We should have done the right thing — that is to say, these are human rights and they're worth our while for protection, so therefore, the province is going to put them forward as guidelines that must be adopted by school boards, and then for us to work with school boards to see how they can translate those guidelines into everyday experiences for the students on the ground.

It's unfortunate. I mean, the question is raised in the community: how much longer must we wait to get those kinds of clear human rights values enshrined into our school system? I hope the answer…. Well, there was no answer from this report, most unfortunately.

I'd like to ask the minister three last questions, and then I will wrap up my questions for the minister around this.

The budget. The announcement actually didn't provide any moneys associated with the report. Was there any funding associated with it?

J. Kwan: For the previous years — and I can appreciate if the minister doesn't have this information — the '01-02, '02-03, '03-04, '04-05 budgets, what was allocated from the Ministry of Education towards safety issues? If the minister doesn't have this information right now, I could receive that in writing at a later time.

Hon. T. Christensen: We'll do our best to get that information to the member.

J. Kwan: Could the minister also provide, aside from the dollar figure, what the programs are so that we know what the different programs are and how much was funded respectively year over year so we can compare it?

J. Kwan: That wraps up my last question. I was racing through to meet the commitment that we were going to wrap up tonight on Education, and seeing as I failed on my estimates previously, I'm meeting this one today. Here we are.

With that, I'd like to thank the minister and the minister's staff for their cooperation throughout these sets of estimates. I must say that from my point of view, this is the probably one of the best estimates processes that I've encountered in opposition insofar as getting information from the minister. I don't mean to say this to get the minister in trouble, but only to say it to thank the minister and his staff.

It was important, I think, from the public's point of view, to receive information that would be important for the public. That's the purpose of estimates, and that's the purpose of the opposition in trying to seek these answers. We may from time to time disagree. As we have demonstrated, we do disagree on many fronts. Setting that aside, getting the right information from the minister is appreciated, and I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for that.

I want to advise the members that we have an 8:30 division in the House tonight.

J. Bray: Following on this wonderful theme that the member for Vancouver-Hastings pointed out….

J. Bray: Sorry, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. There we go. Accuracy is important.

The service plan that the ministry staff put together is really a very helpful document. I know a lot of work goes into the service plans with respect to putting them together and making sure all the information is correct. I'd like to congratulate, through the Chair and through the minister, the minister's staff for their good work, because it makes a big difference for how the public can deal with government on issues such as education.

My first question is around the service plan, in particular on page 15 for those following at home — areas around the objectives and strategies to deal with improved student achievement.

The issues around student achievement as a measurement are something that this ministry has placed a lot of emphasis on. It's one that I agree upon. In looking at the goals around improving year over year the FSA results, foundation skills assessment results, I'm wondering if the minister can expand a bit on — rather than why that goal is important — what some of the strategies from a provincewide basis the ministry is looking at to assist school districts, administrators and teachers to continue to have a year-over-year improvement in the FSA scores for our students.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question and his reflection on how we achieve this goal of continued student achievement. The way we do that is that everything the ministry is doing and every interaction we have with school districts we're doing through a lens of student achievement and a continual thinking or focus on student achievement. We're bringing consistency in terms of that focus. Rather than shifting from one year to the next in terms of what our primary goal is for the direction of this ministry, our primary goal since we were elected has been to improve student achievement every year, and it will continue to be moving forward every year to focus on improving student achievement.

As we work with districts, certainly, we're getting that message to them. I can tell you that from my own visits to about 12 different districts so far, they're clearly getting that message and welcoming that message and that consistent focus on this important goal of improving student achievement. We're saying to districts: "We're going to give you some autonomy. We're going to give you flexibility. We're going to increase funding" — all of which we're doing — "and we're going to hold you accountable. What we're going to hold you accountable for is improving student achievement. We're not going to give you thousands of different measurements that we're monitoring. We're going to look at one overarching goal of student achievement, and you within your district figure out how to meet that."

We're going to come in through district reviews, which certainly involve ministry staff but are primarily a peer review process so that districts are learning from one another and getting the reflection of an outside body as to what is working well in their district and how they are doing — again, with the focus on student achievement. We're using accountability contracts so that districts themselves are focusing on: "What are we doing well? Where do we need to make improvements? What are our goals within the district in terms of making improvements?" — all in the pursuit of improved student achievement.

We're going to make those accountability contracts and those district reviews public, so ultimately, school districts and the work they're doing around student achievement are accountable to the public they serve. We're simply going to continue to drive home that when we come in and talk to you about accountability contracts, this year we're going to talk about student achievement. Next year we're going to look at what you told us in your accountability contract, and we're going to talk about student achievement and continue to drive to school districts that that is their primary focus.

L. Stephens: I have one quick question, I think — I hope. We're running out of time.

This has been raised by the Langley school district. They're saying that over the past years the ministry has funded facility leases in a grant that's separate from the regular operating grants. In our case it's $188,000. Now, I understand that $188,000 is no longer a separate item, but it is included in the envelope or the operating grant. Is that correct? If so, what is being done with these various school districts, mine in particular, that have these kinds of facilities that they have to pay lease costs on?

Hon. T. Christensen: We used to fund leases separately. What we've done is…. Because it was something that was funded separately, it actually resulted in districts managing things differently than they might otherwise do. So rather than sort of providing an incentive to manage something in a specific way — i.e., through a lease because you got additional dollars to do it — we've taken that money, rolled it into the per-pupil funding — the money hasn't been taken out of districts as a group, but it certainly would result in some allocation on a per-pupil basis — and said to districts: "You manage your space needs as you see fit from within that per-pupil funding."

L. Stephens: It's a follow-up. In this case, what it would mean then is that the per-pupil allocation to Langley would be reduced proportionately — of that $188,000. Or is that $188,000 on top of the per-pupil allocation for all the districts?

Hon. T. Christensen: The $188,000 has been rolled into the overall per-pupil grant, so it's money that's been taken from one pot, put into the bigger pot and then distributed around the province.

Overall, what's happened with respect to Langley this year is that their overall funding has increased by about $3.9 million. Certainly, that's more than $188,000, but there's no question it's different in terms of not being a separate category.

R. Lee: I have only one question here. The new graduation requirements will take effect in September 2004. Are the ministry, the school boards, the teachers and the students ready for those changes? In particular, we have the Planning 10 replacing CAPP 10, 11 and 12. Who is going to evaluate those graduation portfolios?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm confident that school districts are ready for these changes. We've been piloting the Planning 10, which is a critical component of the new graduation requirements, as well as the graduation portfolio requirement. Through this last year we've received very good feedback from both students and teachers in school districts around the province. I'm confident that, while it's a change, it's one that's broadly embraced by the education community. I think we can look forward to a very positive experience with the new graduation requirements come this fall.

R. Lee: I will continue my question now on the graduation requirements. Actually, I understand that the graduation portfolio is one of the requirements that the student has to satisfy so that by the time the student reaches grade 12, before graduation, he has to satisfy certain requirements. The question that I think I'm getting from a lot of parents is that they are not quite sure how those requirements will be evaluated. They are quite concerned that if the students have not satisfied those requirements, they won't be able to graduate. They don't know who is going to do the assessment of the portfolio. Can I get an answer for that? Thank you.

Hon. T. Christensen: It'll be teachers that are doing the evaluation. There are a number of criteria by which the students will be evaluated on both a quantity aspect, as to whether or not they fulfilled the criteria, but also quality, in terms of how they've fulfilled the criteria. Rather than try to go on at length about it here and explain it, I'd be happy to provide the member with a good deal of information about exactly how that is expected to work — and it has worked, certainly in terms of the portfolio requirements for this last year when we've been piloting them.

J. Bray: Carrying on with my earlier comments on student achievement and the strategies around improving that, I'm wondering if…. Certainly, here in Victoria we get a lot of chatter that happens on the airways and letters to the editors around funding and what increases have actually occurred in school district 61, the greater Victoria school district, with respect to funding. I'm wondering if the minister can provide me with what increases in the last year, either in one-time grants or in per-student funding increases, that school district 61 has been provided with. He may not be able to do it tonight, but in writing, if the minister could provide me with what increases school district 61 has received since the budget year of 2000-01 as well. He may not have that tonight.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'll provide the member with all that information in one package so that he can see the changes year over year.

J. Bray: Thank you very much, and I'd really appreciate that because I think the facts will be very helpful in this area.

Another area — because Victoria school district has some of the oldest schools in the province — that there has been a lot in my constituency about has been around seismic upgrades and the whole issue about how that's being allocated and the expectations around that, both from the ministry's perspective and also the plans that the ministry has asked for school district 61 to provide — South Park Elementary School in particular, but district-wide.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide an update as to whether or not school district 61 has fulfilled that requirement to provide a districtwide plan for seismic upgrades, and what funding allocation school district 61 can expect if they have complied.

Hon. T. Christensen: The South Park project has been approved, and that is in process in terms of moving forward. School district 61 has done a good job in terms of the seismic assessments of schools and providing that information to the ministry. We are working more broadly, in terms of the province as a whole, in developing a better assessment tool so that we assess all the projects the province needs and we can come up with a concrete plan within the next year as to how we're going to go ahead and address the seismic need across all of our public schools in the province.

Certainly, we've been working closely with Victoria in terms of getting that information. They've done a lot of the legwork already in terms of assessments, and that's information that we are now able to take into account in terms of our next three-year capital plan, which we're just in the process of finalizing.

J. Bray: It's good news for the families at South Park that that project is underway. Also, I'm pleased to hear that the school district is now doing a lot of the legwork to get the seismic work up to date.

My final question is: in the 2003 report of the prebudget consultation, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services had highlighted a number of education initiatives based on the feedback we heard from British Columbians on our provincewide tour. One of the areas was around the linking of students to opportunities in the skilled trades earlier in the K-to-12 system than has traditionally been the case to try to provide more opportunities for students to explore the trades and Red Seal certification in a variety of trades earlier in their secondary school education.

I'm wondering if the minister can update me as to what work the ministry might have done on that recommendation to try and find better ways to link students to apprenticeships.

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of things going on on that front, and I think the member rightly identifies it — and the Select Standing Committee identified it — as an area that definitely does need additional work. The change to the grad requirements that come into play this fall certainly provides more flexibility to boards to develop courses locally that are in this particular area. There is some good work — very good work — being done in a number of districts around the province already.

Provincially we're developing a broader human resource strategy that certainly will be looking at the

issue of better integrating the opportunities here from post-secondary down into the K-to-12 sector. My ministry is working closely with the Ministry of Advanced Education to identify additional opportunities in this area, because I think we all agree that there needs to be broader exposure to students of the opportunities available, and we need to be looking at very innovative ways of ensuring students get exposure to those opportunities and the opportunities actually exist.

R. Lee: My last question is on school capital funding. How much over the next two years will we spend on capital funding for schools? You know, with the economy growing and a lot of people moving into the province, there will be a lot of demand, probably in certain areas, for schools. Would those budgets be projected in a positive way in terms of establishing new schools in some areas, if the growth is there? For example, in Burnaby we have actually increased our population.

Hon. T. Christensen: Last year — about a year ago now — the ministry announced a $611 million program: capital funding for the '03-04 to '05-06 period. We're just in the process now of finalizing the capital funding envelope for what will be '04-05 to '06-07, so really it's an additional year in terms of what's already been provided for in terms of capital funding.

The priorities in terms of which projects go ahead is dependent on a number of factors based on information that is provided by districts. Enrolment certainly is one. The development of new residential neighbourhoods is another. The need for replacement schools, depending on the condition of schools, is another. So there is a broad range of factors there that we take into account, and we're hoping to finalize that capital plan very shortly.

Hon. T. Christensen: Rise and report completion of the Ministry of Education debates and seek leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY