2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 3
CONTENTS |
||
Routine Proceedings |
||
Page | ||
Introductions by Members | 6835 | |
Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 6835 | |
Securities Amendment Act, 2007
(Bill 28) |
||
Hon. W.
Oppal |
||
Business Practices and Consumer
Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 27) |
||
Hon. J.
Les |
||
Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007
(Bill M214) |
||
C. James
|
||
Water Resource Protection Act,
2007 (Bill M215) |
||
R.
Austin |
||
Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 6837 | |
Capital City Volunteers
|
||
C. James
|
||
Bowl for Kids Sake event in
Langley |
||
M. Polak
|
||
Economic diversification in
Quesnel |
||
B.
Simpson |
||
Bryce Schaufelberger |
||
R. Hawes
|
||
Tangle/tooth nets and responsible
fishing practices |
||
R.
Austin |
||
Agritourism and work of Bill and
Dagmar Norton |
||
J.
Rustad |
||
Oral Questions | 6839 | |
Government response to
allegations regarding former Finance Deputy Minister |
||
H. Lali
|
||
Hon. C.
Taylor |
||
C. James
|
||
M.
Farnworth |
||
Vancouver Convention Centre
expansion costs |
||
N.
Macdonald |
||
Hon. S.
Hagen |
||
H. Bains
|
||
Compliance of Ken Dobell with
Lobbyists Registration Act |
||
J. Kwan
|
||
Hon. W.
Oppal |
||
M.
Karagianis |
||
L. Krog
|
||
Tabling Documents | 6843 | |
Response to a user information
request relating to allegations made in the chamber |
||
L. Krog
|
||
Committee of Supply | 6843 | |
Estimates: Ministry of Forests
and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued) |
||
Hon. R.
Coleman |
||
B.
Simpson |
||
S.
Fraser |
||
C.
Trevena |
||
J.
Horgan |
||
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | ||
Committee of Supply | 6867 | |
Estimates: Ministry of Education
and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy
(continued) |
||
S.
Simpson |
||
Hon. S.
Bond |
||
B.
Ralston |
||
J. Brar
|
||
D.
Cubberley |
||
Estimates: Ministry of Advanced
Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology
|
||
Hon. M.
Coell |
||
R.
Fleming |
||
[ Page 6835 ]
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Hagen: I'm really pleased today that I have some friends down from the Comox Valley. The village of Cumberland is one of the communities in the Comox Valley. It has an incredibly great future. I'm really pleased — and I will be meeting with them later today — to have Mayor Fred Bates, Councillor Leslie Baird and their CAO, Anja Nurvo. Would you please join me in making them welcome.
N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Laurie Cottrell. He's a former teacher at Esquimalt High. He is a veteran of World War II. He served with the Royal Canadian Navy. He's here with his son, a colleague of mine from Golden Secondary School, who has come from Golden, bringing with him 11 grade 11 students. I'd like you to join me in making them all feel welcome.
R. Hawes: I have a few introductions today. In the gallery today is Mr. Ed Salle. He is the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. With him is Mr. Bob France, the general manager of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.
With them is a man of few words, but generally speaking fairly loud or well-heard words. That would be a former colleague, former MLA, former caucus chair, Dr. John Wilson, and his wife Laura Wilson. Could the House please make them all welcome.
C. Trevena: This morning I had the pleasure of meeting 31 students from Port Hardy Secondary School, grades 10 to 12. It was a major trip for them, and they were fundraising for a year to come here. They spent the morning learning about what we do in the House as well as the history of this place. I hope the House will make them and their teachers very welcome.
Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery we have some visitors from the UBCM executive. They are Councillor Mary Sjostrom from Quesnel and her husband Butch Sjostrom.
We have Director Terry Raymond; he's a member from the Fraser Valley regional district. We have Councillor Janis Dahlen, UBCM executive member from Nakusp, and Director Rhona Martin, UBCM executive member for Columbia-Shuswap regional district.
I know they're here in the next number of days to meet with ministers as well as MLAs, and I believe they're hosting a breakfast for members to greet and meet the UBCM executive. For those who are here today, I hope the House will make them all very welcome.
Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, he is an individual that we meet with once a year. We are happy to see him on that occasion. We hope we won't see him individually on other occasions, but we're always thrilled collectively when His Honour the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner joins us in this chamber. Please welcome Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, His Honour the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner.
J. Rustad: It's my pleasure today to introduce two people to the House, Craig Caruso and his sister Tamara Caruso. Craig is serving his second term as councillor in the district of Stewart as well as a director for the regional district of the Kitimat-Stikine area. Craig is also a trustee for school district 82. He spends most of his life in rural B.C. and is very concerned about rural economic development. Craig is also the current president of the North Central Municipal Association. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. B. Penner: Just looking up into the gallery, I see a familiar face. It's good to see him back up and around — the former executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Tony Toth.
Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, a former member of this chamber quietly rode into town. Mr. John Wilson represented the constituency of Cariboo North, and he has joined us in this chamber again. I hope all members will welcome him back.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 2007.
Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the amendments to the Securities Act. This bill includes three types of amendments to the Securities Act. First, the bill makes targeted amendments to the Securities Act to continue British Columbia's commitment to harmonize and streamline securities legislation in Canada. Second, it strengthens compliance and enforcement powers to provide the British Columbia Securities Commission with powers already available in other Canadian jurisdictions. Third, it improves investor protection.
In particular, the bill establishes a new statutory civil liability framework that will hold a public company as well as those responsible for the company's disclosure accountable for making misleading statements, whether written or oral. The same liability
[ Page 6836 ]
framework is already in effect in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
In 2004 the ministers for British Columbia and several other provinces and territories signed a memorandum of understanding regarding securities regulations. The memorandum of understanding commits the provinces and the territories to make their best efforts to implement a passport system for securities regulation and to develop and implement highly harmonized and streamlined securities laws. Bill 28 provides for amendments envisaged by the memorandum of understanding.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 28, Securities Amendment Act, 2007, 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.
BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION (PAYDAY LOANS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007.
Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act to regulate payday lenders and to limit fees that may be charged for cashing government cheques.
This bill follows over three years of research and analysis by the federal-provincial-territorial working group under the leadership of British Columbia to develop a framework to regulate this small short-term loan market. For the past several years British Columbia has chaired this federal-provincial-territorial working group.
Amendments to section 347 of the federal Criminal Code, now before the Senate in Ottawa, will enable provinces and territories to establish effective protections for consumers using the services of payday lenders. As noted previously, provinces were not able to enact laws such as the one that we now propose until the federal government had made these amendments.
This bill will require payday lenders to be licensed. It will limit interest and other charges on payday loans, and it will require full disclosure of terms and conditions of loans, as well as prohibiting practices that can lead consumers into a debt spiral.
This bill will also enable British Columbia to set maximum fees for cashing government cheques. These cheques, obviously, pose little financial risk to the casher once the identification of the consumer and the authenticity of the cheque are established.
Prior to bringing these provisions on payday loans and cheque-cashing fees into force, the province will consult with consumer representatives and with businesses that provide these services to determine maximum charges that are reasonable for consumers but sufficient to cover administration costs.
I move that Bill 27 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 27, Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Payday Loans) Amendment Act, 2007, 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.
MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT, 2007
C. James presented a bill intituled Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007.
C. James: I move introduction of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007.
Motion approved.
C. James: After a six-year freeze, it's time the government of British Columbia gave our province's lowest-paid workers a raise. The Minimum Wage Fairness Act will raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour, and it implements a system to index increases in future years so that B.C.'s lowest-paid workers never have to face a six-year freeze again.
By providing this lift and indexing future increases, B.C.'s lowest-paid workers get much-needed support and employees get the certainty they need to plan for the future. Workers have waited far too long for this lift. The cost-of-living increase in B.C. has skyrocketed in recent years, and too many British Columbians are struggling to make ends meet.
This act also reduces the small business tax rate by a full percentage point to reduce costs for the small business sector. This reduction would also be the first in six years and would benefit small businesses across this province, including more than 200,000 self-employed British Columbians.
The Minimum Wage Fairness Act is a balanced approach to supporting our lowest-paid workers and promoting growth in B.C.'s small business sector.
I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M214, Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007, 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.
[ Page 6837 ]
WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT, 2007
R. Austin presented a bill intituled Water Resource Protection Act, 2007.
R. Austin: I move introduction and first reading of the Water Resource Protection Act.
Motion approved.
R. Austin: We're blessed with a wealth of rivers and streams in this province. Past governments of varying political stripe have treated our waterways as a resource and have sought to get full value from them. Water, those governments realized, is a valuable resource that belongs to the people of this province. British Columbians should benefit from the use of that resource, and that's the spirit of this bill.
Under the Water Resource Protection Act, water use rental rates for independent power producers would be set by the B.C. Utilities Commission as fixed to a percentage of the average market price of power. It would give the commission the freedom to set different rates for commercial and general power use. In setting these rates, the commission would take into account the cost of production, infrastructure, the subsidization of existing infrastructure and the right of British Columbian taxpayers to a fair return on that investment.
This bill would allow power producers the ability to earn fair and reasonable profits while ensuring that British Columbians, as owners of the resource, benefit from the use of the water that they own. I urge all members of the House to support this bill and to show support for public resources.
I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M215, Water Resource Protection Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CAPITAL CITY VOLUNTEERS
C. James: Mr. Speaker, as we continue to celebrate National Volunteer Week, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of British Columbia's many volunteers — the people who give so much of themselves to better our communities and the lives of others. The work, time, effort and dedication that these British Columbians contribute to our province must be celebrated and supported.
Here in Victoria there are many individuals, groups and organizations that work tirelessly in our community, and today I'd like to recognize one such group in my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill.
Capital City Volunteers is an organization dedicated to helping seniors and people with disabilities stay independent in their own homes. This organization began in the 1980s when Margaret Salmond, a North Park Manor Society board member, saw the need and opportunity to provide more services to the manor's residents.
Today Capital City Volunteers is a thriving and dynamic organization made up of hundreds of dedicated volunteers. They have consistently developed new programs and services, including an outreach program that's geared to finding youth volunteers.
This organization has built partnerships with many community service organizations and supported various work experience programs. The work that this valuable community group does helps many Victoria residents live better, happier and more independent lives. As one of the organization's founders, Luella Hillmer, once said: "It really is just about caring for your neighbour."
I'd like to thank the entire Capital City Volunteers organization and all of the volunteers for their amazing work.
BOWL FOR KIDS SAKE EVENT IN LANGLEY
M. Polak: On March 31 the Willowbrook Lanes in Langley were overrun by an unruly group dressed in poodle skirts, leather jackets, T-shirts and even a ducktail or two. But it wasn't a case of gang activity or teens up to no good. No, this was a group of people who, along with their 1950s-themed costumes, were wearing bowling shoes, and they were delivering pledges for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley. Teams from local business and community organizations were there to bowl for kids' sake. Our local constituency office even fielded a team that managed a respectable showing, in spite of my own participation.
Bowl for Kids Sake is part of a national initiative that has become Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley's largest and most important fundraising event. Those that come out to support Big Brothers Big Sisters know the positive impact that these programs have on our community.
The impact of mentoring on children and youth is well known, but the impact on the mentor, the big brothers or big sisters themselves, is what keeps volunteers involved year after year. Those who volunteer as in-school mentors report all sorts of benefits to their own well-being. They have an improved attitude at work. They learn about themselves. They feel better about themselves. For those whose employers are active in the program, they feel proud to work for a company that cares.
The work of Big Brothers Big Sisters is a valuable investment in the well-being of children and youth and a huge contribution to the well-being of everyone in the community. The support of all those who bowl for kids' sake is an essential part of ensuring the ongoing success of mentoring programs throughout Langley, raising over $40,000 this year.
To Barbara Scott and the volunteers and participants who made this event possible, I want us all to say thank you for their hard work and dedication in support of the children and youth of Langley.
[ Page 6838 ]
ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
IN QUESNEL
B. Simpson: Quesnel is in the heart of the mountain pine beetle infestation. It is an understatement to say that the economic future of this community remains uncertain. One of the most forest-dependent communities in British Columbia, Quesnel has long prided itself on having the highest concentration of primary and secondary wood manufacturing and pulp manufacturing in North America, if not the world. However, questions now abound about how we will feed all these mills once the beetle-infested wood loses its value.
While some people in the community hope another big industry will come along and save the day, a growing number of people have come to realize that the future of Quesnel will be secured through a diverse array of small and medium-sized ventures by local entrepreneurs using our region's resources to grow a local economy. Groups like the North Cariboo Agricultural Association and our local farmers' market are fully engaged in maximizing every opportunity from our region's agricultural potential, including global sales of their products and the growing sector of agritourism.
The Quesnel 2020 project came up with a vision of Quesnel as an attractive, green and connected community. This project recognized that Quesnel must improve its infrastructure not only to secure investment but to help attract and retain more residents in the region. Today I'd like to recognize the contribution that Councillor Sjostrom has made to this with her heartfelt efforts in Communities in Bloom and making our city look beautiful every spring and summer.
The business, agriculture, tourism, and arts and culture sectors are also coming to the realization that they must take full advantage of the fact that the world is now coming to Quesnel three days a week, from May to September, when the Rocky Mountain Vacations train comes to town. In their inaugural year last year Rocky Mountain Vacations brought 4,500 guests to Quesnel, along with travel writers and international media. The guests' feedback was that Quesnel met or exceeded their expectations.
BRYCE SCHAUFELBERGER
R. Hawes: "Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." That's the oath of the Special Olympics, and it is one that epitomizes the life of Bryce Schaufelberger, who I'm proud to say is one of my constituents. More than a decade ago Bryce founded the Mission Self-Advocacy Group, whose members have an intellectual disability sometimes compounded by a physical disability.
Self-advocates speak up about their rights and the rights of their peers. Their goal is to educate the public about their right to be treated with respect and dignity and to be included in all facets of community. Under Bryce's leadership in Mission, they have succeeded.
Bryce has been honoured with a community service award from the district of Mission for his volunteer assistance to people with disabilities and has also been recognized for his service on the board of the interim authority for Community Living B.C.
This fall Bryce will be representing all of us as a member of Team Canada's soccer team at the Special Olympics World Summer Games in China. I know Bryce Schaufelberger, and I know that he lives up to the Special Olympics oath in every way. Win or lose, Bryce Schaufelberger will always be brave in everything he does. He's truly an Olympian in every sense of the word. Best of luck, Bryce, and bring back the gold.
TANGLE/TOOTH NETS AND
RESPONSIBLE FISHING PRACTICES
R. Austin: I rise today to bring to members' attention the tangle/tooth net and the Skeena constituent, Fred Hawkshaw, who is putting this to good use. As we all recognize, gill-nets are a highly effective harvesting tool. Their efficiency brings some concerns because there is collateral damage, called bycatch, in the form of birds and fish that are not targeted.
In Skeena, people want to catch sockeye, but they can't help but catch steelhead, coho and other fish. After man-made spawning channels increased the sockeye runs, more boats brought more pressure on the fishery. This has led to harvesting pressure on the unenhanced stocks, leading to diminished biodiversity.
When DFO — due to pressure brought to bear by environmentalists, sportsmen and first nations — decreed that there must be a dramatic reduction in non-target species, Fred Hawkshaw realized this could never be achieved with the use of conventional gill-netting. He heard of an innovative net that had been developed by Mark Petrunia for the Fraser River dog salmon fishery, and after experimenting and modifying, he has come up with a net that catches salmon by the nose.
This tangle/tooth net is in-the-face technology that when fished correctly keeps netting out of the fish gills, thereby ensuring that it can be released alive if it's a non-target species. To further ensure the survival of the bycatch, Hawkshaw uses holding tanks that have water flowing through them. He calls this responsible fishing.
Because they are kept alive until he reaches the dock, Fred's fish are in premium condition. He has marketed his catch to restaurants that have paid a premium price for them. Consequently, Fred made $80,000 last season, when the average gill-netter made $12,000.
The industry and its managers are strongly resistant to change, and despite Fred's success financially and ecologically, he fears the collapse of the salmon stocks and the fleet. But surely responsible fishing is key to saving both.
The implementation of this technology is in the hands of DFO, and I hope that when the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands meet with their counterparts in DFO, they will encourage the use of the tangle/tooth net, as I am sure all members would agree that any fishery should be sustainable and create enhanced value for those who participate.
[ Page 6839 ]
AGRITOURISM AND WORK OF
BILL AND DAGMAR NORTON
J. Rustad: Agritourism is not a new concept. Many countries around the world offer agritourism opportunities, including Canada. Agritourism is a form of sustainable tourist development through which the visitor has an opportunity to get acquainted with the agricultural areas, agricultural occupations, local products and daily life on the farm. Agritourism has the potential to be an economic driver in the tourism industry as well as an effective tool in promoting the level of awareness of local agriculture industry and the importance of it in our society.
At a time when there seems to be a disconnect between the consumer and the grower of agricultural products, agritourism has the potential to help bridge the gap, along with things like fall fairs, farmers' markets, 4-H groups and others.
Now, you may be asking: why is this important? It's important because, as the member for Delta South says, we all need to eat to live. It's also important because connecting local products with consumers can help improve the quality of the food we eat, help reduce the pollution created from importing the food we consume and help improve the economies of the agricultural industry.
In my riding of Prince George–Omineca, Bill and Dagmar Norton have been working on developing an agritourism opportunity. They've successfully converted some of the farm buildings into top-quality lodgings. These fabulous facilities combined with the natural beauty of their farm setting make a very unique agritourism experience. Their warm and friendly personalities combined with their belief in the land, in people and in the future help to make this a fantastic experience.
I ask the House to join me in thanking Bill and Dagmar Norton for helping to promote the agricultural industry while providing a unique experience for all to enjoy. You can find out more about their four-and-a-half-star facilities by going to www.nortonranch.com.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING
FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER
H. Lali: Last year I sent a letter to the Premier asking the following questions. I asked him: "Do you have any information regarding Mr. Paul Taylor, former Deputy Minister of Finance, having directed lobbying work to Mr. Brian Kieran?" I also asked: "Have you made any inquiries about Mr. Taylor directing business to Mr. Kieran?" The Premier answered no to both questions.
My question is to the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General consider the Premier's remarks to be appropriate and accurate?
Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, there has been some public information since the time of that particular letter. I think we're all aware of a memo that was in the newspapers, which did mention the particular individual that the member opposite has identified.
As a result of this and because there was some question about what in fact happened, although I hasten to say that this was just a memo between two lobbyists, and we have to be very careful to make any assumptions…. Nonetheless, because it was in the public domain, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, because she is in charge of the public service, has conducted and is conducting a review of the actions at that time.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I do have a supplemental. That is obviously on my concerns regarding the conduct of the Premier's hand-picked deputy minister, a deputy minister who the Premier had personally lured away from the New Car Dealers Association.
I see that the Finance Minister has just got up and provided this information, after the story appeared in the Globe and Mail. Again, my question is to the Finance Minister: why did the Premier not provide the information when I asked him in my letter at least five or six months ago? Why did the Premier not answer the question then, and why is it that it takes this government to have itself exposed on the front pages of newspapers before they're forthcoming with information? Was the Premier in knowledge of this information at that time, and why did he not provide that information when I wrote that letter last year?
Hon. C. Taylor: As soon as the information was made available to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier, she immediately conducted an initial review and decided to go to an outside firm who would help conduct an independent review, which is being done at this time.
C. James: Well, I hear the response from the Finance Minister, who says that an investigation has started, but I think it's important that information be clear and that we get responses back.
Brian Kieran told his colleagues at Pilothouse after a fishing trip he had with Paul Taylor: "Paul told Glen he needed government relations on the ground. He needed us." That's from an e-mail we obtained that outlines the deal. According to Brian Kieran, Paul Taylor was setting them up with a contract with the New Car Dealers of B.C., an organization that Mr. Taylor used to run.
The evidence is clear. This is a matter of public trust. My question is to the Attorney General. Apart from the investigation that's going on, are there other examples that need to be investigated of experiences where deputy ministers, senior officials are outside setting up business deals for lobbying firms?
Hon. C. Taylor: If ever information comes to government regarding the behaviour of anyone involved with government, then we do the proper review and analysis. In this particular instance, as soon as the
[ Page 6840 ]
e-mail — which I again will say was one lobbyist writing to another, and we have to be very careful what conclusions we jump to…. Whenever something like that happens, then the proper procedures are followed. In this instance the Deputy Minister to the Premier has engaged an outside firm to conduct the review.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.
C. James: My question then is: when was the information received? When we saw the letter that came to our member for Yale-Lillooet, where the Premier said nothing was going on…. My question is: when did the Finance Minister get this information, and when was the investigation started?
Hon. C. Taylor: In speaking on behalf of the Deputy Minister to the Premier and the Premier, I will simply say that as soon as the information was received by them, the review was started.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
C. James: Once again, what we see from this government is that we'll get no information until they figure out how they're going to spin it out there publicly. This letter was very clear. In the e-mail it says: "I could come up with this kind of great intelligence too, if I lived next door to a blabby deputy minister." Not a very flattering description of the former Deputy of Finance.
I understand that that former Deputy of Finance has now been appointed to the new convention centre board. My question to the Finance Minister: with an investigation going on, don't you think there'd be some concern with appointing this deputy minister to the convention board?
Hon. C. Taylor: I'm surprised that I would have to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she be very careful in making allegations about someone else's career and personal integrity. All we have here is a memo between lobbyists that has been unsubstantiated but raised concerns so that the Deputy Minister to the Premier immediately brought in a third party to review the situation.
I really think it is disgraceful to make the jump that all of a sudden an individual is not doing a proper job.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
M. Farnworth: If the questions were concerning a minister and there was an investigation taking place, that minister would be asked to step aside while the investigation took place. It does not cast an allegation on the individual but rather allows an investigation to take place.
Given that this memo deals with who was then a senior deputy minister in the government, the minister has recognized the seriousness and the importance of this particular issue by having it investigated. Does the minister responsible for the trade and convention centre project not consider it appropriate that Mr. Taylor step aside while this investigation is conducted?
Hon. C. Taylor: This is a very serious situation when we stand in this House where we have protection with what we say, and yet individuals' careers can be affected and besmirched by the comments that are being made. If the opposition feels so strongly that they have the answers and they know what happened, I would suggest they say it outside in the hall.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Member has a supplemental.
M. Farnworth: These allegations are not our allegations. They're Mr. Kieran's allegations, and they're serious enough that the Premier's deputy is investigating them. The government itself recognizes the seriousness, so the Premier's own deputy is investigating them.
So my question again is to the minister responsible, who is sitting there. Does he not believe it's appropriate that Mr. Taylor, former senior deputy minister, step aside while this investigation takes place?
Hon. C. Taylor: When this memo first hit the press and we saw the situation and the comments that were made, it was certainly taken very seriously by this side of the House. When the e-mail was first made known to the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier, action was immediately taken.
A review is being conducted, and it is being conducted by a third party outside of government so that, in fact, we will know exactly what the situation is.
VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE
EXPANSION COSTS
N. Macdonald: On Monday the Minister of Tourism told the people of B.C. that it was Ken Dobell's idea to merge the boards of the convention centre project and PavCo — not the minister's.
Given that Ken Dobell has shown himself incapable of running the convention centre project and given that B.C. taxpayers are going to be paying twice as much as they were originally promised, why is the minister still being told what to do by Mr. Ken Dobell when the only thing that the minister really needs from Ken Dobell is the final cost on the convention centre project?
Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, you know, the pontificating that comes from that side of the House is absolutely phenomenal. I've got to tell you that this convention centre is a giant job-producing machine.
[ Page 6841 ]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.
Members.
Minister, continue.
Hon. S. Hagen: My question to them is: why are they against the 7,000 construction jobs that are working on that site? Why are they against the 6,000 new jobs that are going to be created to operate that site? Why are they against the $850 million that's going to be generated by the 50 new conventions coming to this province?
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
N. Macdonald: Okay. Today it's pontificating. Yesterday it was punctilious. Did you actually know what punctilious meant? I had to go and look it up. Do you know what it means? It means somebody very concerned about details. It seems to me that what this project needed from the beginning was some concern about details.
The minister has had two days to nail down the final cost overruns on the convention centre project. Surely the minister knows that "in the range of $800 million" is not going to be good enough for any British Columbian. You are spending their money. Their expectation is that they get a final cost estimate.
So my question to the minister is this. Does he honestly not know how much that project is going to cost, or is he not willing to tell the people who are paying for it what that cost is?
Hon. S. Hagen: This new trade and convention centre project is the single biggest economic driver I have ever seen.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: I just want to remind the members that it's running time.
Hon. S. Hagen: Those words are not my words. Those are the words of former NDP Premier Glen Clark back in November of 1997. He was in favour of it. As a matter of fact, he spent $73 million and didn't even get one pile in the ground.
But why are they against this project? I don't understand that. We'll have tens of thousands of tourists and conventioneers coming to Vancouver. They will be sitting out on the patio drinking good B.C. wine, and then they'll be looking out at the harbour. They'll be looking at Vancouver harbour, and what will they see? They will see three shrink-wrapped ferries parked over on the other side.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
H. Bains: All week we've been trying to get answers from this minister about the convention centre. All week this minister has been ducking. I will ask the minister one more time. You have responsibility to the taxpayers. You have been on the job for eight months now. You've got to know the numbers. Tell us: what is the current number on the convention centre?
Hon. S. Hagen: If I was that member, here's what I would have wanted to talk about. I would have wanted to talk about the green benefits of this building. Let's talk about that.
The living roof — 2.5 hectares. That's six acres, the size of 15 hockey rinks. More than 700,000 B.C. plants and grasses. This project is being built to the gold LEED green global certification system.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member, just sit down.
Members.
Continue.
Hon. S. Hagen: I'm excited about this project. Not only is the grass on the roof going to be green, but the habitat restoration that's taking place underneath this building…. The Vancouver Aquarium is so excited that they're already conducting tours underneath the building to see the habitat restoration that is taking place.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Member has a supplemental.
H. Bains: What we are talking about is a world-class cost overrun, and this minister doesn't care. Taxpayers who are watching right now deserve to know how much money they will be forced to fork out for the mismanagement of this Premier's friends.
After eight months on this job, the minister doesn't know or wouldn't say. So let me use the Premier's words: what are the Premier's final kaputski numbers for this boondoggle?
Hon. S. Hagen: I have said time and time again that I am not happy with the increased costs of the Trade and Convention Centre, but let me bring some reality into this discussion, because it's not coming from that side of the House.
We have seen since '03 a 25-percent increase in steel, a 54-percent increase in rebar and a 39-percent increase in concrete. That's what is in the ground there right now. So there have been incredible cost increases that have happened through every building project in B.C. because of — why? — our hot economy. Why do we have a hot economy? Because of the economic policies that we brought in place.
I was in government in 1991. In 1991 this province had the strongest economy in Canada. Five years later, under the NDP government, we were number 10 in
[ Page 6842 ]
this country. We had the worst economy in this country, and two years after that, under the lack of leadership over there, we were declared a have-not province.
I want to ask the question: is there anybody in this House who thinks that we are a have-not province?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
COMPLIANCE OF KEN DOBELL WITH
LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
J. Kwan: Mr. Dobell is a friend and special adviser to the Premier. He is the chair of the finance committee of VANOC. He's a director of Legacies Now and a board member of the Law Society. He enjoys two untendered contracts with the city of Vancouver, and he's a registered lobbyist.
Information obtained from the lobbyists registry indicates that Mr. Dobell registered for the first time as a lobbyist for the development of the cultural precinct project for the city of Vancouver on October 28, 2006, but backdated his activities to April 5.
The Lobbyists Registration Act stipulates very clearly that a consulting lobbyist like Mr. Dobell must file with the registrar within ten days of starting to lobby for a client, and any person that contravenes this section of the act commits an offence and is subject to a fine of up to $25,000.
My question is to the Attorney General. Is he aware of this fact, and if so, what actions have been undertaken to pursue Mr. Dobell's violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act?
Hon. W. Oppal: It's important to note that the Lobbyists Registration Act was brought into effect here in 2002. Prior to that, there was no act. The legislation as it stands now was passed without any opposition.
If the member opposite has specific complaints regarding the conduct of a lobbyist or a would-be lobbyist, then it's incumbent upon that member to register a complaint with the commissioner. The commissioner is there to listen to complaints for any person who is in alleged violation of the lobbyist act.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The member has a supplemental.
J. Kwan: The Attorney General should know that the act gives the Information Commissioner no legislative power to investigate or to enforce violations. It is the Attorney General who is responsible for administering the Lobbyists Registration Act. It's the Attorney General who has the legislative authority.
Why has the government not undertaken any steps to investigate Mr. Dobell? In the minimum, will the Attorney General commit today to launch an investigation into this violation?
Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I reiterate that if there are complaints with respect to the conduct of any person who is alleged to be a lobbyist or is engaging in lobbying activities, then that matter ought to be brought to the attention of the commissioner or other authorities.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.
Member for Victoria-Hillside, will you get up and apologize for what you just said. Just retract it.
R. Fleming: I apologize to the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.
Hon. W. Oppal: It does little good to make the allegations in this House. Make the allegations outside the House. Make the allegations to the commissioner, where it will do some good. You know what? I've heard from time to time, during the last six months to a year, concerns about the Lobbyists Registration Act, but the complaints are always made in this House. They're never made outside the House. We're quite prepared to listen to the workings of the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.
M. Karagianis: Well, the Attorney General…. You are the other authority.
The Attorney General is the other authority, the highest authority here in this province. There is no place else to go, hon. Speaker.
Mr. Dobell has failed in his self-professed accountability on the convention project. The solution to that was to do a structural restructuring of the board in order to cover his trail. Now we hear that Mr. Dobell has backdated lobby registry information by six months, and the government refuses to take any action on this.
I'd like to ask the Attorney General: are there two sets of laws here in British Columbia — one for Liberal friends and insiders, and another one for the rest of us?
Hon. W. Oppal: We operate under the rules of fairness, under the rules of transparency. As I said a moment ago, it does no good to make wild allegations within this chamber. If there are allegations with respect to the conduct of any person, then those allegations ought to be made to the appropriate source.
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
M. Karagianis: Well, there's nothing wild about these allegations in any way. It's on the record. The information is right here, and it is official, open and public information.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has a very unique position in government. The independence of his office and his role is really crucial to the very integrity of government.
[ Page 6843 ]
I would like to ask the Attorney General again if he will make the commitment to fully investigate Mr. Dobell's violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
Hon. W. Oppal: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the duties of the Attorney General's office. I thank the member for apprising me of them. If the member opposite has allegations with respect to the conduct of any person, I'm quite prepared to listen to them, but I only hear them within the confines of this House. If there are allegations, I'm quite prepared to hear them. The commissioner is quite prepared to hear them as well.
L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, the only thing weaker than the Attorney General's response is the complete lack of enforceability of the Lobbyists Registration Act. The act is clear. A lobbyist must register…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
L. Krog: …within ten days of undertaking to lobby on behalf of a client. If a person contravenes this section of the act, he or she commits an offence under the act and is liable to a fine of up to $25,000. Mr. Dobell backdated his lobbyist activities by more than six months. There is no provision for enforcement in the statute. The Attorney General knows that. He has listened to the questions today.
Will he commit today to launch a full investigation? The public record is clear. The documents are out there. Will the Attorney General commit to launch that investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: I'm well aware of the provisions of the act. All I ask is that the allegations be registered with the commissioner, who is quite prepared to hear them, and the process will take its course.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
L. Krog: Well, I have a document in front of me that is very clear. It confirms exactly what has been alleged in this House. I will table that document, and if I table that document, will the Attorney General then commit to finally do his job in this matter and launch an investigation?
Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to do all those matters that are incumbent upon me to do under the act.
[End of question period.]
S. Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Introductions by Members
S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very special guest, a friend of mine I've known for over 20 years, visiting from Alberta. Mr. Doug Rae is a lawyer there. We worked on many, many elections in Calgary. I think he's working here in Victoria, but he's also here to see how the Legislature runs.
He's also a new resident of the Kootenays. He has a vacation place there. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Doug Rae.
L. Krog: I seek leave to table a document.
Leave granted.
Tabling Documents
L. Krog: I seek leave to table a document, which is a response to a user information request relating to the allegations I've just made in this chamber.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in this chamber. We will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range and, in Committee A, the estimates, firstly, of the Ministry of Education, to be followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.
The committee met at 2:34 p.m.
On Vote 33: ministry operations, $489,876,000 (continued).
Hon. R. Coleman: Before we begin today, I want to clarify a few items from yesterday's debates.
First, the member for Cariboo North asked whether the lumber export taxes received by the province were reflected in the revenue calculations for the Ministry of Forests and Range. The answer is yes. The blue book estimates for 2007-2008 forest revenue is $1.395 billion. That item includes the softwood lumber export tax. Details of the forest revenue components can be found on page 156, table A10, "Material assumptions," in the 2007-2008 Budget and Fiscal Plan.
Second, the member asked where the $450 million U.S. for meritorious initiatives was directed after the softwood lumber agreement was implemented. The federal government advises us that the money is being provided to three organizations in the United States: (1) $200 million U.S. to the United States Endowment for Forestry and Communities, (2) $150 million U.S. to the
[ Page 6844 ]
American Forest Foundation and (3) $100 million U.S. to Habitat for Humanity International.
Third, the member asked a series of questions about the terms of Ken Dobell's existing and future contract. My information was incorrect. We are not in the process of negotiating a contract with Mr. Dobell. His contract with the Premier's office extends to May 31, 2007, and includes any work he does on behalf of the ministry for the coastal forest industry or anything to do with softwood.
If the member has any further questions about the terms of that contract, which is the one I believe the member got through FOI, I would refer him to those appropriate estimates debates with regards to that particular contract.
B. Simpson: I appreciate the clarifications.
Just on the Dobell clarification — Mr. Dobell. I find there was quite a bit of confusion, then, yesterday, because we had quite a substantive debate about negotiations that I guess must not have been going on. Will the minister, then, engage in those negotiations — what will it be? — post-June 1? Will the minister be retaining Mr. Dobell from then on under a separate contract?
Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually not clear at this stage that we're even going to require his services after the end of May, so we would engage with the source of the contract, which I assume would still be the Premier's office, if we thought we had a requirement for some of this time under the contract.
B. Simpson: Anyway, I'll move on.
Yesterday in estimates we were canvassing whether or not the forest revitalization plan had achieved its intended objectives. We discovered that it has cost over half a billion dollars for the plan. We discovered that…. While I argue it was an attempt to prevent a softwood lumber agreement and British Columbia's exclusion from a future softwood lumber agreement, the minister at least admitted it was an attempt to mitigate that. I think we showed that mitigation didn't occur. B.C. never got any other special treatment than the rest of Canada did.
We also started to canvass the coastal situation, and that's how we got to Mr. Dobell. On the coastal situation, which the forestry revitalization strategy explicitly states would strengthen the coast, now we're going into iteration 2.
The minister suggested that I was looking for a magic pill. That's simply not the case. I know the industry too well. I know its complexities too well to be looking for a magic pill. What I'm trying to understand is how one failed strategy, with all the players that were engaged in that failed strategy, leads to another strategy with all the players that are involved yet again.
At the end of that discussion the minister indicated that he's been talking to a lot of people, yet at the same time indicated he wasn't at the table in the discussions with the steering group and whatever Mr. Dobell was apparently facilitating. That's raised a number of questions for me. With respect to the minister's activities, how many sawmills in British Columbia has the minister toured over the last year?
Hon. R. Coleman: I couldn't possibly, off the top of my head, give that number to the member. I've been in a lot of sawmills in the last couple of years all over the province of British Columbia, and I would have to go back and look at my schedule to actually give you a definitive number.
I have been in sawmills in the Kootenays, the interior, the coast and the north. Actually, anytime I've basically gone through a community, if there's been a mill or something, I've tried to tie that into my other duties at the same time to have an opportunity to see how other mills operate and that sort of thing.
B. Simpson: We've tried to get the minister's calendar, and we'd like to see that. We tried to get it under FOI, and hence I have to ask the questions.
The minister was invited to sit down with the people at the New West mill in Queensborough during that closure process. Did the minister meet with the workers group at Queensborough mill as they requested of him?
Hon. R. Coleman: I met with the head of the local union in my constituency office. I believe it was in early February that I actually met with him, when I returned from holidays. It was either that or before holidays, but I did meet with the leader of the union with regard to that mill at that time.
B. Simpson: Did the minister deliberately choose not to meet with the group? They asked the minister to meet with the employees at one point. What was the reason behind not meeting with the employees as a whole?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, it wasn't anything to do with that. I was out of the country for a big chunk of January, when some of this was going on. I know some of my staff met with different groups with regards to the New Westminster closing. That would be the only reason — and then scheduling, of course, to try and do things. That was the only reason and none other.
B. Simpson: Has the minister done any tours of mountain-pine-beetle-impacted areas? Have you looked at it either flying over or on the ground?
Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that I have, and so the answer is yes.
B. Simpson: What about the fires up in our area, for example? Did the minister go and look at that, most recently with respect to the fire in the Nazko area, and the combination of fire and dead plantations in that area? Has the minister actually gone and seen those locations?
Hon. R. Coleman: Not specifically, no. I can't get to every fire location in the province. That's why I have
[ Page 6845 ]
staff in every region with regards to fire information officers and with regards to everything else that goes on, on the land base. I have flown over the area of the pine beetle probably more than a dozen times since I was elected in 1996, starting in about 2001 or 2002.
B. Simpson: Has the minister visited any of the dead plantations or juvenile stands and seen for himself how deep the mountain pine beetle is impacting the age class?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I've had that pointed out to me on a couple of tours that I have done, so I am aware of that nuance.
B. Simpson: In how many forest-dependent communities has the minister sat with the local councils, in the communities?
Hon. R. Coleman: I would say 30 to 40 over the last two years. At UBCM I do about 60 meetings where I meet with local government. Probably 80 to 90 percent of those meetings are with forest communities with regards to issues including pine beetle, community forests and that sort of thing within their communities.
In addition to that, I've been in most of my Forest Service offices throughout the area, sat down with my staff in round-table conversations whenever the opportunity has arisen, attended meetings with my senior staff and had discussions with them on a regular basis. So I meet with local government a fair amount, actually.
B. Simpson: I wasn't actually referring to UBCM. What I was asking about was actually getting out and meeting with local governments in their communities so that the whole council has the opportunity and the minister has an opportunity to see what's happening in the communities. Has the minister had an opportunity to do much of that?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I have done that in a number of communities that way. But just for clarification for the member, when they come to UBCM, it's not a member of council. I get entire councils that come to see me at UBCM. It's a very convenient forum for them, and it's a convenient forum for us to be able to go through. We go through their issues. We make notes of what their issues and concerns are. We respond back to them in a very timely manner. When you spend, I think it was, four days in meetings back to back to back, you meet a lot of people with regards to local government.
S. Fraser: I'd like to change gears here a little bit and move to Port Alberni, if I may, and some of the forest issues surrounding the Alberni Valley. Last year the minister committed to visiting with the workers and the community in Port Alberni, and that has not occurred. I know the minister has made an effort to. I know he's flown over the area, which I think is important. I also know the minister has met with his staff there, and I know he's talked to the press.
There are some issues. I'd like, first of all, to know if the minister is planning on meeting with the community. We could set up a community meeting, which was what we anticipated.
Hon. R. Coleman: I actually met with a number of people from SOVA, people who have issues in and around the Alberni Valley, here at the Legislature in an extensive meeting within the last month. I've had a couple of other meetings with those groups with regards to it. In addition to that, I have had a number of meetings with the mayor over a period of time, and conversations with him.
The reason, when we went to Port Alberni and went to visit my office, we couldn't visit with the Port Alberni council or mayor, who would have set it up, was that there was a scheduling problem on his part. Twice we tried to get in there and couldn't land because of weather. They accommodated my schedule and were great about coming down here and sitting in the Hemlock Room in this building, which gave us an opportunity to spend quite an extensive period of time going over their issues.
S. Fraser: I'm aware of those meetings, although the community still has an expectation. Many people in the community have been impacted by forest policies in the Alberni Valley. I appreciate the efforts here, and I appreciate the challenges of flying in there, but I'm still hoping and the community is still hoping that they can meet with the minister and he can actually see for himself, visit some of the mills, see some of the closures and some of the challenges that we're seeing all over the valley.
Part of that challenge and one of the main things we're seeing…. If the minister hasn't received it, there will be a letter from the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. This is regarding raw log export and the issues around that and also around the private managed forest lands. Now, I understand that's private managed forest lands. But in some cases with Island Timberlands, that is land that was removed from the tree farm licence — that's TFL 44 — back in 2004.
I'm going to touch on a few things. I've got a letter that was from the then minister — that was Minister de Jong — and it was to Craig Neeser. This is regarding the transfer of the land. I know the minister must be aware; he's probably seen the documentation. The minister of the day was advised not to release those lands from TFL 44 — 70,000 hectares. One of the reasons stated was that it would be to the detriment of the community and the workers there. I think that is one of the reasons the minister needs to go and talk to the community.
But the question is…. At this point in time, the land that was removed…. The benefits cease to go to the community, and we've seen an impact with workers, and we've seen compensation issues. I'm wondering if the minister is willing to address any of those issues, because they occurred specifically because of the actions of this government in 2004 against their own staff's advice.
[ Page 6846 ]
Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the best way to answer the member's question is that obviously I am interested, otherwise I wouldn't have commissioned the report on the Alberni forest sector review that was asked for by the community, which is a little overdue, frankly. I expected it by the end of last month.
I would expect that I will see it shortly, and that will obviously give us feedback with regards to all the activities in the Alberni Valley, including issues around where the logs are coming from that may go into mills, whether they come from places like Tahsis or the Charlottes, as well as coming from the valley, and all of those issues that will come back and forth.
I expect to have that soon. When I get that, I will obviously release the report, and then I would engage with the community at that time.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Can the minister explain why the terms of reference for that Alberni Valley industrial review did not specifically include the removal of the 70,000 hectares, which was requested by the community?
Hon. R. Coleman: Just like with the log export review, quite frankly, I don't believe in fettering the work that people are going to do — to come back and sort of put any bias into their discussion. They have the ability within that report to look at all the aspects that affect the Alberni Valley, and they'll come back with comments with regards to what they think is relevant.
There's no intention of government to go back on what happened with the private lands back in 2004. But they can obviously tell us what they feel happened and how things are working, and that's the whole idea. The whole idea, I guess, is to look going forward. I think everybody recognizes that the forest sector is shrinking, including the Leader of the Opposition, who, actually, even in today's Times Colonist has recognized that there are changes in the forest sector and on the coast — that there are a lot of difficulties.
It's probably the biggest challenge that faces this minister. I think probably over the last two decades the coast has continuously posed challenges for the ministry to see what we can do to try and get an environment out there that works. Government can't actually go run the business, cut the log, decide where the fibre is, what product is going to be cut, where it's going to be shipped, what markets want to buy it, at what price — all of those things.
Government will do what it can do, given the report and what have you. But I'm sure there will also be within the report issues in and around communities and other issues in and around the forest sector.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, although I'm not suggesting that we turn back the clock. Decisions made in 2004, however, had dire effects on the industry and on the workers in Port Alberni, and that is the issue.
The 70,000 hectares taken out of TFL 44 still have a devastating effect today in the Alberni Valley. That is what the minister would have heard if he had travelled there and heard from the people in the valley. That's still the key issue, and it was not made part of the mandate of the industrial review.
With that glaring gap, without addressing that issue and reviewing it, there's a fundamental piece of the puzzle that will not be addressed through the industrial review. The community and the workers will be suffering for that. So will the minister commit today to visiting the community and addressing and looking at the issue of that land removal from TFL 44?
Hon. R. Coleman: When I get the report, I will release it, and then I will engage with the community. If that means I can get to the community to sit down and talk to them about what's contained in the report and what they want to talk about going forward, we'll do that.
However, we must recognize that the timing for that will be substantially past the end of May, because we're here until the end of May. I hope to get the report in the next two weeks. While we're here, the member will probably get an opportunity to see it. As soon as I get it and I've read it, I'll release it. I'll also release it to the community locally so they can start giving me input.
If in the month of June or early July we have the opportunity, we'll go to Port Alberni and sit down with local government and community groups to discuss the report and see what can happen going forward. But I can't today commit to a specific date to the member, simply because I have actually seen my schedule going forward, and it's pretty chock-a-block at the moment.
I would anticipate that it'll be one of those things where we'll try and block it in long enough in advance so we can let people know that that date is possible and then try and get there on that particular date.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate the time difficulties in scheduling, and I appreciate the efforts he will make in June or July to visit the community and also to have that report made in a timely way to the community so that they have a chance to review it prior to his visit, if that's able to be scheduled. I appreciate that.
One last thing for this moment. The minister did have a chance to fly over the region. I'm not sure if your staff was there. Did the minister have a chance to see the devastation in the Beaufort Range that's happening on private managed forest land and its forest activities? It's a scale which I have never seen before, and it's of major concern to the entire Alberni Valley.
Hon. R. Coleman: I have flown over the area, and I don't want to go down the road of having a debate about what is devastation and what isn't. There is reforestation taking place on those particular lands. As I understand it, there are setbacks, etc., being followed.
Because it's private lands, it's under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands under the private forest lands management. I'm not involved in that side of that. Hopefully, the member will canvass some of that with the Minister of Agriculture during his
[ Page 6847 ]
estimates if he gets the opportunity to do so. Of course, the lands are actually under federal statute, not under provincial statute.
C. Trevena: I would like to go back to the release of lands. As the minister obviously knows, there is a current release of lands from TFLs. If the minister knew, as he has indicated, that there have been problems with the previous release of lands, I wondered why he allowed the current release of Crown lands, particularly from TFL 6 to Western Forest Products.
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, first nations were consulted on this decision, and I considered interests concerned and raised and other factors before making the decision. Deleting the private lands from these TFLs on the coast is one of the series of steps government is making in an effort to revitalize the coast forest sector, quite frankly. The province is working with the forest sector on the coast to identify those opportunities.
The deletion of private lands will allow Western Forest Products more flexibility in restructuring its coastal operations. Now, I don't want to get into the financial strengths and weaknesses of any individual company with regards to things, but I do know that it certainly is an important piece in that company's mind — and frankly, for their stability long term — to be able to serve the communities on the coast.
C. Trevena: I'd like to ask whether the minister received any briefing notes about this transfer.
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I did. I had briefings from my staff. I had briefing notes, and the briefing notes actually recommended this.
C. Trevena: Would the minister be in a position to table a copy of those briefing notes?
Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have it here, and I would suggest that the member might just want to file an FOI request. There are hundreds of briefing notes from the ministry, and to be specific about a specific one would be difficult. So if the member wants to make the request, we will certainly make sure it goes through the proper process. Sometimes there are confidentiality issues with regards to a note, and sometimes there is a commercial interest that has to be protected, so it has to go through a lens before it would be released.
C. Trevena: I wondered, then, on a specific in the briefing note, whether it included any reference to compensation to the Crown for the transfer of lands.
Hon. R. Coleman: No.
C. Trevena: I'd like to pick up on a statement that the minister made very categorically in talking, initially, about the transfer of the land in TFL 6, which is that first nations were consulted. The first nations themselves were trying for consultation. They were informed in August of 2005 of the possible removal of the land which is in their hereditary area — the Kwakiutl band — and received various letters back and forth. Then there was one meeting. I would like to ask the minister if this one meeting is what qualified as the consultation with the first nations.
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if I can answer the member's question with regards to the number. I mean, I don't have that here, and obviously, I don't do those meetings, but the Kwakiutl and a number of other first nations were definitely consulted.
A lot of correspondence and consultation went back and forth with regards to this particular deletion. As we came through the process, one of the things they wanted to see done was the protection of some ungulate range, which was done. In addition to that, they wanted access continuing for first nations using neighbouring Crown lands and theirs for fishing, hunting and cultural purposes. Those accommodations were met.
The ministry actually consulted with 23 first nations organizations with regards to this decision-making process.
C. Trevena: One of the issues is meaningful consultation and accommodation. While the ministry wrote a number of letters to the Kwakiutl, whose land claim this is, they did only have one meeting.
I'd again like to ask the minister: a number of times the band asked for assistance in consultation but received none and were told that there would not be assistance. In fact, Chief Councillor Verna Chartrand said, if I may just quote into the record a letter: "They'll not consider paying for our recent expenses in doing so, let alone consider sharing in the huge and consistent profit from harvesting. To expect that we would have the technical capacity to respond appropriately without adequate resources is unfair, unreasonable and disrespectful to us, whose life and livelihood are closely tied to the land and surrounding forest environment."
Again, I'd like to ask the minister: in the definition of meaningful consultation, is meaningful consultation a number of letters between officials within the Ministry of Forests and just one sit-down meeting?
Hon. R. Coleman: When we do consultation work with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Attorney General's department with regards to what is considered meaningful or adequate consultation…. We have been doing this for a long time. It's an evolution that takes place in what is consultation or accommodation.
I have every confidence that my folks — as we came through this, because I did ask the question about consultation — did what would have been required to meet the test of consultation with regards to this particular transaction. We were not advised in our meetings or discussions with either of the other two ministries that we were not correct in that particular matter.
[ Page 6848 ]
C. Trevena: I would like to ask whether the minister is familiar with the Supreme Court of British Columbia case of the Hupacasath First Nation against British Columbia.
Hon. R. Coleman: I am familiar with the case, but I am not going to comment on it.
C. Trevena: In the case it was found that the Crown hadn't had meaningful consultation with the Hupacasath First Nation when lands were taken out of their territory. In fact, the conclusion was that the Ministry of Forests decision to remove lands from TFL 44 gave rise to a duty on the provincial Crown to consult, and the Crown failed to meet that duty — which is why I'm asking the questions. The Crown was found negligent in that case. That is why I am asking the questions about TFL 6 and the apparent lack of consultation in that case.
Do you feel that there was really enough consultation when we are talking about a series of letters and one meeting — that these lands were taken out of first nations possible treaty areas?
Hon. R. Coleman: There is an evolving body of opinion in court cases, obviously, on the land base in British Columbia, and there has been for many years. We learn from those. We adjust our processes and our practices. Quite frankly, I was advised that we had done adequate consultation on this particular removal.
C. Trevena: The concerns that the Kwakiutl First Nation have are very straightforward. No matter what the ministries feel, that they have met a certain test, the first nations feel that their rights have been extinguished by what has been happening — that by removing the lands and putting them into fee simple, they have lost their aboriginal right and title. That is why I bring this back to the fact of: is a series of letters and one meeting adequate consultation for first nations on such a vital issue for this first nation?
Hon. R. Coleman: Just a clarification, Member. These were always private lands, so the change here was the removal of the forest operations side of it from the private lands, from the TFL. They were always private lands; they were always fee simple private lands with regards to the ownership of the lands.
I should say to the member that — and I will repeat it again — when I made the decision, when the decision came across my desk, I asked the question of whether proper consultation had been done. The discussion was in and around our experience and around everything that we knew at the time. Also, we had had the Attorney General and, obviously, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in the mix with us as we came through this. The answer was that we felt we had completed what the requirement was for consultation on this file.
The member may have a letter from somebody that disputes that. There are other avenues with regards to that dispute. But we feel that we did the consultation according to the guidelines and according to what needed to be done.
As a minister I asked if we had done the consultation. I was told that we had consulted with 23 first nations with regards to this removal of the TFL and, frankly, got the answer that our consultations were complete. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made the decision.
C. Trevena: The ministry staff wrote to the chief councillor, and the ministry staff said in a letter to the chief councillor: "The law is unclear as to whether and to what extent there is a legal requirement for the Crown to consult with the Kwakiutl on private lands that are not subject to an agreement under the Forest Act. Should the minister decide to remove the WFP lands from TFL 6, there likely would no longer be an impetus for the Crown to consult on forestry operations on those lands."
If the ministry staff were unclear in a letter to the chief councillor, why did the minister not take the action to make sure himself — rather than just talking to the other ministries — that there was full consultation and talk, as a minister, to the chief councillor?
Hon. R. Coleman: There was consultation. I was advised that consultation was adequate and complete.
C. Trevena: Just one last attempt to see if we can move on beyond this. The Kwakiutl are very concerned. I'm sure the minister also knows that they have gone to the Premier about this case. They are very concerned and have written to the Premier because of the new relationship and because they actually believe that there might be some substance in the new relationship. They are hopeful that there will be some response and that this decision will be put in abeyance.
If I might quote again from the letter that went from the chief councillor to the Premier recently, she says:
"It appears the provincial Crown is acting as though the Douglas treaty is a matter of no consequence. Our treaty rights are protected under section 35 and should be honoured by the Crown.
"To hold one meeting and to fail to provide any further follow-up until the decision is a complete failure of consultation. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal that the failure to consult invalidates a decision, as the decision-maker has no jurisdiction."
While the minister may disagree with this, I would ask, while there is a controversy over this, while this has gone to the Premier and while there is still a stated belief and a stated commitment to the new relationship, that this minister put this decision to release the lands from TFL 6 into abeyance until discussions can take place between the Kwakiutl First Nation and the minister and, one would hope, with the Premier.
Hon. R. Coleman: We continue to have dialogue with this first nation on a number of issues, broader than just this removal from the TFL, which are caught up in maybe some other discussions. There are still
[ Page 6849 ]
discussions going on, on some issues. I'll make it clear to the member, though, that the decision is made. The decision was announced, and it is not the intention of the minister to go back on the decision.
J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in the estimates for the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'd like to continue discussion of the removal of lands from TFLs on Vancouver Island. I'd like to come down to my neighbourhood, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and, in particular, lands removed in and around Jordan River, Port Renfrew and the district of Sooke. Could the minister advise me of the amount of land that was removed and what the public policy motivation was at the time?
Hon. R. Coleman: In the Jordan River area almost 12,000 hectares will come from tree farm licence 25.
J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. The last time significant tracts of land were removed from TFLs, there was a briefing note prepared — I have it here — for the minister at that time, advising that there would be considerations when deletions were proposed. Some of those included equitable treatment of similarly situated private lands and fair market evaluations of both sides of the transaction — the deletion itself and the consideration.
Could the minister advise if there were market evaluations done of the properties in and around Jordan River?
Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't do a market evaluation of the lands. We did do an evaluation of the infrastructure that the government would be receiving or inheriting as a result of any of the transitions.
J. Horgan: What's the benefit to the people in my community, particularly those who were working in the forest sector in Jordan River and the district of Sooke? What's the benefit to them of this removal?
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think any effect, quite frankly. This isn't a removal from forest production, and there are no mills in that particular area. There may be some logging going on, and those people will still be employed in logging or in transport or whatever the case may be with regard to the jobs in the bush.
J. Horgan: If that's the case, then, what valuation of infrastructure was the minister referring to in his previous answer?
Hon. R. Coleman: As part of the evaluation when we do this, we examine the public accesses, including features for the public to have access to Crown lands. This is for a number of reasons, both from a recreational standpoint and from a future forest aspect, so that there's access onto other portions of land if they can be affected.
We do receive road accesses and setbacks along those roads that we take back into the public, so the public has control and ownership of those roads, when we do this. I don't have the evaluation of the infrastructure in any particular area of this thing, but I'll be happy to get it for the member.
J. Horgan: I'll look forward to that information from the minister.
Was there a cash transfer of any kind involving this arrangement with Western Forest Products?
Hon. R. Coleman: No.
J. Horgan: I understand that the minister doesn't have the details and that they'll be forthcoming, but why do an evaluation? I don't understand. People in my community are concerned. The minister will know that TimberWest is a large private land owner in my constituency and that Western Forest Products has now become, through this policy initiative, a large private land holder in my constituency.
Development without being part of the official community plans of the various communities up and down the west coast of the Island is of primary concern. If there was an evaluation of assets returning to the Crown, I'm wondering what Western Forest Products was getting in return, beyond the land. What, if any, restrictions are there on the use of that land?
Hon. R. Coleman: Just to answer the member's first question, because we did find a number: the conservative value of the roads that we received in all of the TFLs that we took back, that we got back into the public hands for the access to the public, is $2.5 million. No cash changed hands. We received those, basically….
Interjection.
Hon. R. Coleman: That's across them all. I will endeavour to get the ones separately, though, for the member's issue.
The Private Managed Forest Land Act will apply to these lands unless their status changes — e.g., they're developed for a higher and better use. Other legislation, such as the federal Fisheries Act, Heritage Conservation Act and Drinking Water Protection Act will apply to the lands, despite its future use.
In addition to that, there are no log exports from the affected lands for three years, even if the land is resold to a third party.
There's an agreement to work with the Ministry of Environment on protecting ungulate and winter ranges. They have to maintain current ISO and/or CSA sustainable forest management certification; the continued recreational access to the removed lands for the public; and continued access for first nations using neighbouring Crown lands for hunting, fishing and cultural purposes.
[ Page 6850 ]
J. Horgan: People in Malahat–Juan de Fuca are quite concerned about access to private lands for recreational purposes now. I have ongoing discussions with TimberWest with respect to access to their private lands off Renfrew Road, just north of Shawnigan Lake, where hundreds and hundreds of recreational users enter onto their lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes.
The concern in Sooke and environs as a result of this deletion is that rather than providing access to these lands, through the government decision those lands are now alienated from public use. Following on the responses that I heard the minister give to my colleague from North Coast, I'm wondering: if the deletion has resulted in fee simple private lands, has there been a net increase in and around TFL 25 of fee simple private lands? Or were these the entire amount that was put back in when the arrangement was struck some time ago — some decades ago?
Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification, these were always fee simple private lands. There was no change to the title of the private land. It was fee simple private land. They were within a TFL, which is what the removal was. In the agreement with the company, basically, current access is being maintained for public use on the private lands. I don't know about the particular road that the member is specifically talking about, but I have come across a couple of times when I've had calls about somebody putting up a gate on a road on private lands, and saying: "They're restricting our access."
In the two times I've had to deal with that, when I've made inquiries, I've found that the reason was for public safety issues because there was an active logging operation going on. They wanted to make sure they didn't have anybody coming up and down the road because of the public safety aspect of not wanting anybody to get hurt by ongoing industrial operations.
I don't know about the member's particular road, but I'm happy to look into that one.
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
J. Horgan: The last thing the minister wants to do is to wade into the Renfrew Road issue. I was using that as an illustration rather than a specific. So put that one away, and we'll worry about that some time in the future.
With respect to Jordan River and the Sooke district, the concern there is…. I guess I'll phrase the question this way. So 12,000 hectares came out. Was it 12,000 hectares that went in when the TFL was created initially?
Hon. R. Coleman: We would have to do some research back on the history of these lands because it goes back decades. We'll get that information for the member.
J. Horgan: I appreciate that. Again, speaking on behalf of my constituents, their concern is that this was productive forest lands benefiting all people in the community. It was considered to be public lands. An agreement was struck, not with Western Forest Products but various iterations of that back to the '40s and '50s.
The concern in the community is that bringing the land out now for what they perceive to be development purposes — not to continue on as forest lands — dramatically alters the landscape in the community. It will affect the official community plans.
I'm going to specifically ask the question: when the removal of the deletion took place, were his staff aware that the development restrictions were one living unit per 300 hectares? Or were they under the impression that it was more units for fewer hectares?
A. Dix: While the minister is waiting to answer the question, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
A. Dix: I wanted to introduce to the House 20 students from grades 8 to 12 from West Coast Alternate School in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.
Just for their information, we're debating the budget of the Ministry of Forests right now. The Minister of Forests is over there, and we on the opposition side will be asking the Minister of Forests questions over the next little while.
Thank you very much, and I ask the House to make our guests welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. R. Coleman: The local zoning is the local zoning. Frankly, it's not our responsibility to deal with that in the Ministry of Forests.
J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate that, and I'm well aware of that. Since the decision was made for the deletion, or the deletion was made public, a review of zoning in the area was undertaken by the electoral area representative and people in the community. I would suggest that when the decision was made, Western Forest Products was under the assumption that the minimum lot size was 2.5 hectares.
Since then it has been learned that there was an error at the capital regional district, and now the minimum lot size is 300 hectares, which kind of puts a dent in your development plan if you're building condos.
The question I have for the minister is: when you were devising the deletion, the public response I heard was that it was to assist Western Forest Products address their debt management challenges and build for the future. Does this zoning issue materially alter that, in your view?
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think that it does, and it's really not my problem. The deletion was done to take it out of the TFL. There are 12,000 hectares here.
[ Page 6851 ]
I am familiar with the area of Jordan River. I would think that a couple of hundred hectares of development in that area would be a substantial development. My understanding is that these will still be private managed forest lands. They will meet the standards for CSA and standards for how they would do their practices. They're obviously going to take care of the ungulate range and the setbacks and all of that stuff.
I would think that they're going to manage this forest, as they've managed it in the past, for the long-term turnover of that land for, obviously, the next crop after this crop. And they will do it in a manner that is sustainable.
From the development side, that's not a consideration. Frankly, it's really not my due diligence that would have been required to know what might happen with the land afterwards. That would be the company's. It's really, I guess, not my problem.
J. Horgan: Well, it has certainly now become a problem for Western Forest Products. I appreciate that the minister was undertaking his responsibilities as he saw them, and Western Forest Products will have to deal with that.
I am pleased with the last response, and it gives me some comfort that I can return to Sooke and Jordan River and advise the people there that it's the minister's and the government of British Columbia's view that this land will remain as productive forest land, and it won't be developed hodgepodge to meet debt requirements by selling real estate.
I thank the minister for that, and I'm sure it gives some comfort to my community.
B. Simpson: With the previous comment, it's a nice segue into where I want to go with this.
The minister has mentioned a number of times, not only in this venue today but in question period and other venues, that these are private lands. They always have been private lands. I am wondering if the minister could share with us his understanding of the original arrangement for tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, of which these private lands were part.
Hon. R. Coleman: None of us were here then. It was the 1940s and 1950s. My understanding of the inclusion of the private lands in the 1940s and 1950s was that by agreeing to include their lands within TFLs, companies at that time were provided with some additional rights to some public timber.
We should also recognize that at no time, whether they're in or out of a TFL, have they ever paid stumpage to the Crown.
B. Simpson: The minister is correct. While we weren't there, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything. One thing I've found in this file in particular is if you don't know the history, you don't understand the current conditions and you don't understand the way things are and why they are that way.
So here's an education. I find it hard to believe that the briefing note to the minister, in the particular case that the minister was involved in, could be much different in terms of providing background to this minister than the briefing note that went to the previous Forests Minister back in 2004, where that detailed information was.
The reason for these private lands coming into tree farm licences was because of the E&N Railway land grants. The public at the time was very concerned that most of southern Vancouver Island had been given over to private interests. So the explicit reason for entering into these tree farm licences in the 1940s and 1950s was so they would be managed under public control. That was the explicit reason for these tree farm licences on Vancouver Island.
It was a contract — and I'm sure the minister understands what contracts are all about — between the companies and the Crown, with a presumption of gain to the companies. By bringing private lands in, they got more direct access over Crown land.
The deal was that that private land got managed as public land. I find it rather ironic, if not hypocritical, that in the forestry revitalization strategy it states explicitly that this government was going to retain public ownership of our forests and ensure strict environmental standards.
If the minister has read the briefing notes or been briefed by his staff, he would know that one of the major reasons that the companies want these private lands out is to get under the less strict private managed forest lands regulations.
In the case of the release from tree farm licence 44, in the court case Brascan, which was buying Weyerhaeuser at the time, made it explicitly clear that they were going to save anywhere from $15 million to $24 million annually simply by getting out from underneath the code and the upcoming Forest and Range Practices Act.
In the 1990s the government of the day was involved in the protected areas strategy and was involved in the CORE process. There were set-asides, and there were parks. At that time TimberWest came to the government, along with MacMillan Bloedel, and said: "Release our private lands back out again."
In a full-blown public consultation called the Perry report, the people spoke with a single voice, particularly the people of Port Alberni, and said: "Do not do that. We want those lands managed under the Crown, not as private managed forest lands."
It was clear; the consultation was comprehensive. The government of the day actually paid MacMillan Bloedel $83 million in lieu of releasing the private land. At that time government policy was a recognition of the set-asides and recognition of the valuation of the private lands. If they'd flipped the private lands out, Wayco would not have gotten the cash. Because they couldn't flip the private lands out, Wayco got cash. There was a presumption of compensation.
Between 2001 and 2004, Weyerhaeuser again approached the government and the minister of the day
[ Page 6852 ]
asking for those private lands to be released. There was no public consultation at this time.
The sale of Weyerhaeuser to Brascan, now Brookfield Asset Management, was explicitly based on the release of the private lands and was valued at a significant incremental value. Those findings, again, are in the court case. As I indicated, one of the main reasons was to get out from the Crown obligations.
The ministerial advice at the time — and that's why we're asking for the briefing note to the minister this time — delivered to the minister by one of the members of the minister's staff sitting in the House today, explicitly states that there should be an expectation of compensation.
It says that at one level this change is simply a matter of contract. The government and the landowner made a contract decades ago to manage the land as if it were public. Deletion undoes that contract. Since the initial contract involved consideration — the award by government to the landowner of timber rights on Crown land — it would seem that the landowner should be able to buy out of that contract by providing appropriate consideration in return.
My question to the minister at this juncture is: what was the appropriate consideration in return in the deletion of the private lands that the minister undertook? What did the Crown get as a result of those deletions and the breaking of that contract?
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to rise to the bait. Over 60 years ago the maturity of the forest management was vastly changed over the last 60 years, and its management has improved — professional practices, foresters guided by the Forest Act and sophistication of companies different then than now. This decision was made after consultation with my staff. It's done. It wasn't about us getting compensation. It was about trying to create an environment for an opportunity for a company to have stable investment in the future and to look at some of the highest and best uses of the land.
B. Simpson: I always find it interesting that the minister goes to help Western Forest Products out on this, given that yesterday he claimed that I think that he only talks to corporations. So here's a question for the minister: what communities, outside of the first nations communities, were consulted with the release of the private lands that this minister oversaw?
Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't. These are private lands. The decision was made to remove them from the TFL.
B. Simpson: Did the minister have direct consultations with Western Forest Products on this transaction?
Hon. R. Coleman: No.
B. Simpson: So the minister at no time had a discussion with any agent of Western Forest Products with respect to the removal of these private lands?
Hon. R. Coleman: I didn't have any formal meetings on this particular issue with the company. Obviously, I was in other meetings with the company where it was brought to my attention that something might be coming forward to me, but I didn't at any time give them any indication that I would make a decision one way or the other. I just basically said at the time that I would wait for the information to come forward from staff and that I would make a decision in a timely manner one way or the other based on the information I received.
I didn't ever go into a meeting formally on this particular issue. But as the member knows, when you're in different meetings and conversations with people, they'll bring up a variety of subjects. I wouldn't say that at no time did it ever did come up, because I'm sure that it did.
B. Simpson: In my meetings with the CEO prior to this release he certainly made sure that I was crystal-clear that this was a significant portion of their go-forward strategy — crystal-clear — and that in order for them to do what they needed to do, they needed the softwood lumber return.
Now, they were very reluctant. They did not like the softwood lumber deal for all of the reasons that the minister is aware of why the coast didn't like it. But they saw a portion of that return to extinguish some of their debt and the release of the private lands to extinguish some of their debt. So in the conversation that the minister had around this issue, whether it was formal or not, was mention made to the minister that the intent of Western Forest Products was to liquidate these lands, to sell them, to cash them out?
Hon. R. Coleman: No.
B. Simpson: It certainly was made very clear to me, and it was also made clear when the CEO of the company was asked questions about the sale afterwards. So that takes me to another area.
The minister has given two messages here. He says that the lands released will be managed as they were managed in the past and that they will be managed sustainably. How much of Western Forest Products lands were released and will be available for what the minister calls higher and better use, which in the industry does not mean "managed as forest lands"? Was the minister ever apprised of what proportion of these lands released will become higher- and better-use lands?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, hon. Member. When it's private land, they have the ability, if they want to go to zoning in a local community if it's interfacing with the community, to see if some of that land has another use.
But if you look at where the lands are located and the size of the tracts…. My understanding all the way through this in any discussions I ever had with anybody is that the majority of the land will probably always be in a renewable forest operation that will be managed.
[ Page 6853 ]
B. Simpson: That is precisely why communities needed to be consulted. The minute they come out from the tree farm licence, they are free to designate them as higher and better use, free to go through development processes, and free to get into the situation that we find in Port Alberni and other places, where Island Timberlands, which inherited the bulk of the previous deletions, is going after their export profile and development in a way that communities have no say over. That's why communities should have been consulted, let alone the fact that it was a breaking of an original contract, explicitly, because people wanted these lands managed.
Now, I'm presuming that what the minister is talking about is his letter, and I find it interesting that the minister says he doesn't have control over what happens after they're released because they're private lands. The minister wrote a letter to Western Forest Products, under the presumption that somehow there would be some kind of gentleman's agreement as to what would happen with those lands afterwards.
My question to the minister is: does that letter the minister wrote have force of law?
Hon. R. Coleman: Certainly the log export part of the letter does. It follows that the land, obviously, the wildlife habitat…. They're working with the Ministry of Environment. The ungulate range and those things are governed by that particular ministry and its statutes, so the force of law would be there.
The certification side and all that…. My expectation is that there would be a follow-through. I can't tell you which one has specific force of law because I don't have legal counsel here, but I'm happy to get that for the member.
You know, when somebody decides to take a piece of land in a community…. I know the member is familiar with this, but I want to remind him, because I think it's unfair to make some comments that say that communities don't get consulted. If they take a piece of land and choose to rezone it for something, they go through public hearings. They go through a public process if they want to go into the community plan or into a regional district and develop it for another use. That has always been my understanding.
Now, if they're in an unorganized area, I would imagine there is some other process involved. But I do expect that if it's something…. In and around Jordan River, for instance, if it was close to the community, there would be a regional district involved in the approval process of allowing somebody to build, for lack of a better description, houses or whatever the case may be or, as the one member mentioned, condos on some of the land.
That's where the public consultation comes in with the community. The member also knows that even in the public hearing stage in communities, there is an area around it where the notification is given to the actual neighbours of the land. So those things are all in other processes and are not what drives this particular decision.
B. Simpson: I'm always happy when the minister makes sure that I understand what I'm doing. However, I would correct…. My understanding is that when that land was under Crown, when it was in the tree farm licence, there was no opportunity for designation of higher and better use. There was no opportunity, when it was in the TFL, to come out. That's what I'm saying. The communities are understanding now that in changing it to private managed forest lands, they can take it out any time they want to, and there isn't a requirement for community consultation on what land gets taken out and what doesn't.
The minister is correct. What they're going to develop that land for then has to go through the process. But the very issue of them being flipped from tree farm licence to private managed forest land licence does mean that there is a different option there for the landholders.
With respect to the private managed forest land there are also further constraints — or no constraints, I guess — in terms of community consultation. It's one of the changes that they get in the less regulated environment under private managed forest lands. We'll get into the Forest and Range Practices Act. If it was a tree farm licence, there is at least still some requirement for consultation. Again, I believe communities ought to have been consulted. There is a presumption in the briefing note to the previous minister that communities ought to be consulted.
Let's go to the letter. This is an example where we have a situation in which a previous minister went down this path, so we actually have a case study that we can look at it see how good this letter is going to turn out to be. With respect to the deletions from tree farm licences 39 and 44, on July 9, 2004, a letter went to Weyerhaeuser at the time. Again, a number of explicit requirements were put in the letter. One was future forest management. It says:
"Subject to applicable law and Weyerhaeuser's operational risk management and other needs, the current status of managed forest on the private property will continue and be subject to all applicable legislation and regulations within the Private Managed Forest Land Act, the governance planning, soil conversion, harvesting rate and reforestation. Variable retention, stewardship, zoning and old-growth areas will be maintained indefinitely."
My question to the minister is: how much of the release from tree farm licences 39 and 44 has been switched to higher and better use and no longer comes under these regulations?
Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, there are questions that come in estimates…. We're actually talking about the estimates of the budget of the ministry. We don't have that information here. I understand there may have actually been a look at this, and the information may be available. We will endeavour to get that information for the member, if we have it.
B. Simpson: My understanding of estimates is that it has to do with the budget and the operations of the
[ Page 6854 ]
ministry. The release of the private lands is a policy decision by the ministry that is fair game in estimates.
Let's talk about budget, then, if the minister wants to talk about budget. When tree farm licences 39 and 44 were released, did the ministry have to buy back access to alienated areas of Crown land in the Port Alberni Valley? If so, how much did they have to pay?
Hon. R. Coleman: I know what estimates is — about the operation of the ministry — but this is 2004. To expect that I would have that information in front of me in a debate in 2007 is probably not correct. Quite frankly, we will endeavour to get that information for the member.
The Chair: Member, the minister's point is well taken.
Continue.
B. Simpson: Madam Chair, with due respect, I was going to contest the minister's contention.
What we're trying to understand is that the minister gave a letter in a current transaction that occurred this year to a forest company in which he laid out very similar requirements to what occurred in 2004. We're trying to understand what the legality and legal standing of that letter is in 2007 with respect to lessons learned or actions that were taken with the letter in 2004. It is a current issue, and the precedence of that is what we're trying to explore. As far as I know, the transaction in buying back occurred sometime recently. So my last question had to do with a recent occurrence.
With that, one of the questions that we have very significantly with respect to all of this, is that as part of the minister's briefing, did staff go back and look at what occurred in 2004, point for point in that letter — the constraints around water quality, the constraints around forest management, wildlife habitat, certification? Did they go back and look at that and say: "Okay, look. There was a situation in 2004 in which we did the same thing. Did it get adhered to before we then release lands this year and write a similar letter?"
Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy minister does recall a review, and substantially the conditions of the letter were met, but we will get that information for the member. We don't have it here today because it was in 2004 that this took place.
The member makes a comment about some money transferring hands in the last year or so. That's not the case. I don't know where he gets that information from. But it's not the case with regards to the operation of this ministry and budget with regards to this exclusion.
What we will do is we will endeavour to get the member, as I said already, that information with regards to what was reviewed and how it was working and how the letter was being met. But we do recall that that was done, and it was substantially in very good performance with regards to the condition in the letters. But I don't have that in front of me. So we will get the information for the member.
B. Simpson: I'm not asking for information from 2004. I'm presuming that a briefing note went to the minister, and I'm asking the question: as part of that briefing, was an evaluation done in this last year when this transaction occurred? Did the ministry staff go back and look at what happened? This is a current event, not something that happened in 2004. An event occurred in 2004. A letter was written that the minister was about to write to another company. I'm asking if an evaluation was done this year on the implications of the letter that was written in 2004.
For example, did the ministry check and see…? There was an explicit requirement, for example, that Weyerhaeuser will maintain ISO and/or CSA certification and continue to subject the private lands to the public advisory as per CSA standards. So did the ministry this year go back and look and see if Island Timberlands, which now has this land, has maintained its certification as one example of the evaluation that needed to be done?
[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: Same answer. We will endeavour to get the information for the member.
S. Fraser: Going to the letter of July 9, 2004, the conditions that were laid out for Island Timberlands. There was one issue that I'm aware of that was dealt with currently, because I did it through correspondence to the minister in January of 2007. That was around road access or lack thereof.
The issue that I brought forward was the closure of the Comox main line in the Alberni Valley. I see heads nodding, so I think this is totally germane to current issues. In the letter I referred to the conditions that were laid out in 2004 with the removal of the lands from TFL 44 — against the minister of the day's own staff's advice, I might add.
In the conditions of that removal — one of the few conditions that was laid out, as no compensation was required, even though staff said that there should be — was access to road systems. I'll quote: "Weyerhaeuser" — then Weyerhaeuser — "will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." At the time this was written, in 2004, as the minister and staff may know, that road system was open, unimpeded and has always — for decades, historically — been well used as a main transportation route to Comox, back and forth from the Alberni Valley.
Since those conditions ensuring that the road systems were maintained with the current public access — current as of 2004, which was open — Island Timberlands closed that. They locked the gate there. The minister responded to me on February 15 and tried to explain the rationale for that closure. I don't understand the rationale. It contradicts the basic conditions that were originally laid out when the land was removed. Could he explain that for me, please?
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the letter I sent you in front of me, but if I recall it, I think it was Timber-
[ Page 6855 ]
West, if I'm not mistaken. There was a rationale that I got back from the company that there were some industrial operations occurring, and they were concerned about public safety with regards to people using the road at the time that they were doing logging or extraction of timber on the land base.
There was always the intent when these things were done — and always will be the intent, quite frankly — that the current access would be maintained by the landowner. But there are times, to ensure public and worker safety and to protect the property, that it's become necessary to restrict public access during active industrial operations.
That includes, in my mind, restricting access in order to protect the value of your assets. So if you're experiencing a lot of vandalism on your equipment and what have you because you're planning on doing industrial what have you, and you haven't moved equipment out or whatever the case may be, I think you're entitled to try and protect that as well.
The intent is always, as I understand it, to keep that restriction to a minimum — only as required to conduct operations. If that isn't the case on this particular road, and the member wants to tell me that, I will have another conversation with the company.
S. Fraser: What I'm getting at is that the condition was very specific in the conditions of removal. "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." They will maintain it. There are no conditions there. That is it. That is the end of the statement on road access.
Presumably, in the release of the land, the minister of the day, Minister de Jong, would have known that that land was to have accelerated use because of the weaker restrictions on private managed forest lands.
The Chair: Excuse me, Member. I just want to remind you that the use of proper names is not permitted in the chamber.
S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I apologize.
The minister of the day would have known that the lands being removed…. The request to remove them by then-Weyerhaeuser was so they could have the weaker restrictions of the private managed forest land and receive the financial benefits of that. So with the knowledge of the day from the minister of the day that obviously the increased activity would be occurring — surely that was anticipated — the conditions still said that the roads must be kept open.
Since the company received what amounted to a windfall profit by the release of the lands — against, again, the minister of the day's own staff's advice — surely the company should have kept that road open regardless. If there was a security issue, they could have used some of the tens or hundreds of millions of windfall profit to hire a security guard or some other means.
But the statement was that "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups" of the day. Is that in no way binding?
Hon. R. Coleman: I have both letters now, and so I will comment to those. First of all, the fact that the letter went out on February 15, after a letter was received by us January 17, was actually good turnaround for my correspondence branch, and I must compliment them on that.
I don't know why the member would be confused by the letter, because it's pretty clear in the letter what I advised the member:
"My staff advised me that Island Timberlands has a gate located approximately one kilometre along the Comox trail on their private lands. There is another gate located approximately ten kilometres up the Comox trail from the first gate. The company has three active logging blocks on the Comox trail between these two gates and is also active on the adjacent spur roads.
"While the gates block access along the Comox trail for approximately ten kilometres, there is still access through…"
And I go through the Great Central Lake, Elsie Lake, Lowry Lake, Strathcona Park and back onto Comox trail through the road to Great Central Lake and connecting logging roads.
Now, "legislation on Crown lands," as I also go on to state, "does even today provide for us on our Crown lands to close roads due to industrial operations when it endangers property, public health or safety. The gates were locked after the contractor experienced nightly vandalism on their logging equipment and the theft of their fuel."
So they did it to basically protect their asset during the time of the logging operation, which I think is not untoward and, quite frankly, is something that I would expect that the community would actually understand. If there's a logging operation going on, you don't want people just driving anything up a road where somebody might be falling a tree or running a large piece of machinery or driving a logging truck loaded with logs in a tight area when they're doing the work. Also, while that operation is going on, there should be the ability to be able to protect your assets.
That was the practice, hon. Member, when they were private lands within the tree farm licence. It's a practice that's allowed on Crown lands today, in TFLs and any Crown land for that matter, with regards to maintaining current access when you're trying to protect assets or public safety.
S. Fraser: The minister says it's the practice on private lands within TFLs. It's the practice on public lands — TFL land, I assume he's referring to — but it is not the practice on private managed forest land according to what I see as a contractual agreement made between this government and then-Weyerhaeuser in 2004 to "…maintain current access for public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." So that was laid out as a condition.
[ Page 6856 ]
There's no arguing that there are trees coming down there. The Ash River Valley was devastated when these lands were removed from TFL 44 — export wood, I might add. But it says the stipulation was that the roads would be kept open — not on public land, as the minister was referring to, and not on private land within TFLs.
This was made private managed forest land. It was removed from the TFL. Under that condition of removal — clearly stated by the minister of the day, so it was standing under private managed forest land regulations — that road, that access for the public was to be maintained.
Again, I'll ask…. The minister is answering a different question, as he did in the letter. I'd like to know: if that condition is laid out in these ten conditions for removal and it's not being adhered to, clearly — and the minister is defending it not being adhered to under the current conditions — do any of these conditions apply, or will they be enforced by this government?
Hon. R. Coleman: Let me help the member out. It says: "Weyerhaeuser will maintain current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." Correct. Do we agree on that? I think so.
The current public access — access for the public, industrial road–users at the time — is exactly as it is today. The current practice at the time of this agreement was that you could close a road for public safety and for security reasons while you were in an industrial logging operation. That's exactly what they're doing today.
It didn't say that Weyerhaeuser will keep the road open under all conditions all the time for public access. It said: "Access for public, industrial road–users — maintain current access." Current access is how we were operating at the time, and current access is how we're operating today.
Current access means that in order to protect public safety — we do it on our roads too — we maintain the current access for the public when it's safe to do so. But when it's not safe to do so, we have the right to close a logging road. That was the current practice for the current access at the time, and that's the current access that is being maintained.
The member may want to read between the lines, but I think the wording was actually written that way for a specific reason. "Current access for the public, industrial road–users and aboriginal groups." The current access at the time in a TFL would have been that if they were going to log on this particular road in that area and have three operating and active logging blocks, they would have been allowed to close the access to that road for public safety purposes. In the case of vandalism or theft of their equipment or fuel, they would have also been able to secure some access for security reasons on those roads. So that hasn't changed.
The reality is…. I get that the member thinks the road should be open all the time, but in an abundance of caution and the safety of the public, I believe that the company is doing what they would have done at any other time with logging on any land, whether it be Crown land or land within a TFL that was private land.
S. Fraser: I won't stay on this longer because we're running short on time on this issue. But the Comox trail main line historically was subsidized through public money, through the stumpage system. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and make an assumption here for the member. If the road was always on the private land, they would have paid for the road — not us. If we used the road for the transport of commercial timber from Crown lands, whether in or out of the TFL, we would probably have paid an allowance to help with the maintenance of the road because we were using it. I don't know the details for sure.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
The deputy offered to me, so I will offer to the member that — because this is actually a pretty local issue, and not at the level of detail that we would have here — perhaps we could arrange for the district manager or the regional manager in Port Alberni to sit down with the member, go over that and get the questions, I guess. It's a historical question that goes back 30 or 40 years. We may not have all the details, but the practice would be what I described in this particular instance.
Madam Chair, I wonder if we could take a five-minute recess.
The Chair: Absolutely. We'll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
On Vote 33 (continued).
B. Simpson: A few things to wrap up the private land removals. Again I want to put it into context as to why it's current. The minister mentioned that he would like to get on with some budget things. Quite frankly, I think this was a significant budget issue. I think it was a missed opportunity for the Crown to get fair compensation back for the release.
As a consequence, I believe taxpayers were not well served by either this release or the release in 2004. I believe that precedent, contractual law and in fact the briefing to the previous minister all indicate an expectation of compensation.
What is particularly troubling is that in the Weyerhaeuser case, the lands were released without compensation in June of 2004. Then in December of 2004, Weyerhaeuser was given $32.1 million for the 20-percent takeback during the clawback.
A couple of questions to wrap this up. Based on the conversation we've had around the letters and based on the fact that it doesn't appear to be an appraisal done on the letter that was written in 2004, will the
[ Page 6857 ]
ministry be monitoring the criteria that the minister placed on these deletions this time? Will there be a monitoring program in place? If so, what would that look like?
Hon. R. Coleman: Staff have confirmed that we did a review of that letter and its implications, so we will get that information for you. We do have an e-mail saying we did it. We'll obviously get the information for the member. My expectation is we will do the same on this exclusion as well.
B. Simpson: Just a piece of information I need, if the minister has it at hand. Western Forest Products was one of the ones that had 20-percent takeback under the clawback in forestry revitalization. What was Western Forest Products compensated for that, and when was their compensation completed?
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the date. We're going to get the date in for you, but it was $21,545,692.
B. Simpson: Was there any consideration at any time that compensation…? I'll retract that because it does only apply to the 2004 case. It doesn't apply to this new case, so I'll leave that question.
Let me go to the final question on this for now — of course, depending on the minister's answer whether it's final or not. Is the ministry getting any complaints about the logging practices on the private lands that have been deleted — particularly the previous ones, TFL 39 and 44? Is the ministry getting complaints about logging practices on those lands?
Hon. R. Coleman: We don't deal with those complaints. They would be the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, because it is under the private forest lands stuff, which is under that ministry. I will ask the minister if he has any and endeavour to get that information for the member.
B. Simpson: Again, if the minister does make his way up to Port Alberni, he'll find that that's a big part of the protest in Port Alberni. We apprised the minister of that when SOVA — the Save Our Valley Alliance — was out protesting on this minister's office area in Port Alberni.
The complaints are significant. The complaints are significant throughout the Cowichan area, the Port Alberni valleys and up into the Comox Valley now. My concern — and I've expressed it to the Coast Forest Products Association and to the Council of Forest Industries — is that we are inviting a significant backlash because of those logging practices to all logging practices across British Columbia. We could easily be back to a war in the woods, and I'll be surprised if that doesn't occur very shortly.
Again, back to the theme that I'm following here, where the revitalization strategy stated explicitly that we would maintain public ownership of lands under this government's tenure. Since 2004 we've released 120,000 hectares of lands that were managed under Crown obligations, under Crown regulations. We've released those lands out from those Crown obligations to the weaker private managed forest lands. The public has lost control or any input into those lands, except on a voluntary basis.
My question to the minister on this is: as part of evaluating this, has there been any evaluation done of the amount of log exports from the private lands that have been deleted? Is there any intent on the part of the ministry to monitor log exports from those deleted lands?
Hon. R. Coleman: Just to the previous member's question on the Western money that went out on a takeback. It was January '05 when that was paid out.
What we do, for the member's information, is keep track of log exports from provincial and federal lands. Federal exports — we refer to them as federal exports — are the stuff that comes from private lands because it's under federal jurisdiction. We have it by year, frankly, but we don't have it by specific area — for instance, how much would come off a specific block.
We may be able to get some of that information for the member by going into more detail. But right now we track what the exports are, both private and provincial.
B. Simpson: I'll come back to the detail on log exports shortly. I was just curious whether it was tracked because, again, log exports was one of the reasons that people didn't want the deletions to occur. They had noticed that Notice 102 is a more relaxed test than the Crown test for log exports. So I will come back. I'll be looking for those numbers shortly.
Let's come back to the coast and the conversation that we finished off on yesterday, and take a look at some of the issues there and in the interior.
With respect to clarification from yesterday, I actually have in front of me the presentation that Mr. Dobell made to the TLA, and "coastal czar" appears on one of his slides. I wanted to go back and make sure I wasn't imagining things. It actually did appear on a slide that he presented himself.
Hon. R. Coleman: Did he put his name beside it?
B. Simpson: No. He did clarify that his terms of reference indicated that he was a coast facilitator, which is what the minister refers to him as.
One of the questions that has arisen as a result of the minister's comments yesterday is whether or not the process being used to develop the coast revitalization is a consensus process.
Hon. R. Coleman: I would say no. There is probably consensus on some items between different groups and organizations — between labour and truck loggers and companies.
I would say that it's more about taking the best information that's been accrued that I've been able to read over the last year or so with regards to the coast
[ Page 6858 ]
and the industry, including reports that were done by previous administrations and that sort of sort of thing; coupled with the facilitation that Mr. Dobell does; coupled with discussions individually with groups like the truck loggers and organized labour; coupled with basically saying at times that there are going to have to be some tough decisions made that won't, frankly, be born from consensus.
The report, which is actually penned for all intents and purposes by me and my staff, will make recommendations that may seek a more aggressive role in some particular areas and might have come out of consensus, because consensus sometimes takes you to the lowest common agreement of what could be done versus what really needs to be done.
There is no question that as I come through the final process of this thing, the toughest decisions will be borne and recommendations will be borne by the final conversation on the report that will go forward for discussion by government — by the minister and his staff.
B. Simpson: If it's not by consensus — and I take the minister's point — my understanding…. Let me clarify. The minister was not engaged — by his own admission, I believe, yesterday — in the actual group process where Mr. Dobell was facilitating. I believe the minister actually said he was not present at those discussions. Let me clarify that. Is that in fact correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's correct. I did visit with the group a couple of times for maybe an hour or half an hour at the beginning of a meeting to, hopefully, identify to them that I wanted them to meet deadlines and think outside the box and that sort of thing. I did that. I had staff at every one of those, who basically kept me in touch with how the discussions were going and the information that was being compiled, and that was the role of the staff.
I didn't have to be at those meetings as, firstly, they were being facilitated by Mr. Dobell, and secondly, we had information flow coming back. Then quite frankly, even outside of those meetings — whether it be at an event or in individual meetings that were brought to me with people in industry and what have you — that may have been part of that. Oftentimes they would bring up issues that they were thinking we're dealing with or how we could do it differently. It has really been a compilation of discussion.
B. Simpson: The minister mentioned that the independent manufacturers are represented in this process. How are they represented?
Hon. R. Coleman: I met with the independent manufacturers a number of times myself. I've had individual meetings and presentations from a number of the companies in that particular part of the sector. In the last number of months, on top of that, they've had a representative in the coast recovery group discussions as well.
B. Simpson: Again, because most of that information process isn't transparent, my question is explicit. How are they represented at the table — through their association representatives or by invitation of somebody who is a manufacturer? What is the actual nature of the representation of that group at the table?
Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is my staff met with a group of about ten of that particular group, people together, and basically asked them who would be represented to them. They identified an individual who has since been at the table.
B. Simpson: I have a submission here from the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association to Mr. Dobell, because that group did not feel they were represented in the process. Was that representation brought forward to the group for deliberations?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've seen that, read it, and I'm taking it into consideration in the deliberations.
B. Simpson: The minister mentioned yesterday that the steelworkers were invited. Were they explicitly invited? Who was invited, and were they explicitly invited to sit at the table that Mr. Dobell was facilitating?
Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy minister and — I don't know what his title is; we'll call him the executive director of the Coast Forest Products Association — met with the union on two occasions to brief them and bring them up to date with what was going on. The deputy minister explicitly asked if they wished to join the table and be part of the overall group, and they decided not to do so.
B. Simpson: Were the pulp and paperworkers union or the CEP approached?
Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy minister has actually met — and I'm not going to try the acronym, because I'm not sure I'd get it right — the pulp union with regards to this. There was no expression of interest from them to have any further input, but he has kept them apprised of the discussions.
B. Simpson: Vancouver Island municipalities and coastal municipalities have their various associations. Was the association asked for a representative to sit on this steering group?
Hon. R. Coleman: No.
B. Simpson: I know that it's hard for me to ask questions around this, because I know the minister's answer will be: wait for the report. I'm trying to just make sure that I understand the process that's going to lead up to this report.
If I understand it correctly, it was not transparent. It was not in the public domain. There were no minutes
[ Page 6859 ]
or anything kept or distributed to the public. It was by some kind of invitation only, based on criteria internal to the minister's office of the ministry. It was not based on consensus. So I don't think people are going to be clear on what the decision matrix was for that.
With all of that, who would the minister say are the people who aren't happy with that process who even participated in the process? Are there people who have come to the minister and said they're not happy? They're concerned about the outcome in advance of even seeing the outcome?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've had no complaints. In actual fact, in the process Mr. Dobell did, as you mentioned, speak to the truck loggers. There were communities at that particular session. We haven't had anybody particularly come forward and say they want to be part of the working group.
You have to remember that this thing was put together at the request of industry and communities to use this particular vehicle, which I don't think was called the coast recovery group but the coast advisory, or whatever it was at the time. At the Truck Loggers Convention in 2006 I agreed to do that, and I reinvigorated the process for them to look at the coast and put some resources of staff behind it.
I knew all along that that one group of people wouldn't drive all the decisions in any way. I knew all along that there would be one-on-one discussions with anybody of interest with the minister over the next year and a half.
Quite frankly, I've been quite accessible for people to come and have a visit with me with regards to their issues, not just on the coast but in forestry in general, and I've looked at the best information available.
I'm comfortable that this has taken us to the point where we can actually target the initiatives that are necessary and that can be done by government. So let's be clear — the initiatives we think are necessary and can be targeted by government in the short term, medium and long term with regards to the coast.
Having said that, I also know there are a number of other outstanding issues that affect the coast. Those issues, quite frankly…. There are some that are just not in the control of government, so they will come through different aspects of recovery, if they do come at all. That will depend on certain negotiations.
As the member knows, the labour contract is up in June. That will be a discussion between companies and labour with regards to the contract with regards to the forest workers, I think — not the pulp side. So that's a piece of it.
We're going to try and set a direction, some of which will lead to additional public discussion as we go through it, because once you go past the first phase and you start to look at the transition, that's when you engage with the public on the direction you're going to try and follow. We'll do that engagement, as well, as we go through this.
B. Simpson: I just want to be clear. The minister is indicating that the truck loggers are happy with the process?
Hon. R. Coleman: They tell me they are, so I guess that's the best information I can give to the member. Whether every truck logger or every forest company or every community likes what comes out of it as you try and build a direction…. Well, I know that's pretty much impossible. There are different personal, financial and other interests with regards to every aspect of forestry. But up to this stage, I haven't had any complaint from the truck loggers saying they're not happy with this process.
B. Simpson: Now, the minister has made some comments at the B.C. Business Council with respect to Bill 13 and tenure buyback. Because the minister has made those comments, I'll ask this question: will there be anything in this that further goes to eliminate Bill 13 or reduce Bill 13's effect, and will there be anything in here about tenure clawback and legislating compensation for tenure clawback?
Hon. R. Coleman: I used Bill 13 as an example in a speech. I didn't say I was going to get rid of Bill 13. It did bring some communication of concern from the truck loggers to me, which I will talk to them about.
I'm not going to say today what the decisions of government will be with regards to any of the points that will come forward in this plan simply because government has a decision-making process. I'm not going to breach cabinet confidentiality as I come through this.
When the package has been processed and we know what our decisions are, they will be made public. Then at that time there will be, I'm sure, some public debate and discussion in and around some of the initiatives we take.
B. Simpson: In my experience in a number of years of working in organizations and organizational effectiveness, one thing holds true. It's that a bad process always ends up in poor results. It always ends up biting you at the end of the day.
What we've actually got, and what I'm going to explore now, is the fact that the process that was used for the forest revitalization in 2003 is not much different from the process that's being used now. Talk to the large corporations, give them the ability to have the stronger voice at the table, do it behind closed doors, don't engage communities, don't engage the workers, don't engage the general public, and then come out with something that favours one group in the sector.
This sector is not simply the large corporations. Again, so that I'm not misunderstood, I have nothing against large corporations. They have a role in our marketplace and in our society, but their role is to the benefit of their shareholders, and government's role is to the benefit of everybody else, particularly in the case of a public resource.
What we're going to have to do with whatever comes out in the coastal strategy is to address errors and omissions in process in 2003 that have created problems. That's what I want to explore just now. The
[ Page 6860 ]
revitalization strategy in 2003 indicated that it was going to accomplish a whole bunch of things, and it's actually created the reverse. So let's try to explore that a little.
With the 20-percent takeback, how much of the actual takeback has been completed? What is the actual figure, and what is the calculation for the takeback? For my edification, what was the proposed breakdown of the reallocation of that takeback in the original revitalization strategy?
Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, I appreciate that the member can have whatever comments he wants. He'll say that it's a failed process and what have you, but that's going to be the case. Whether I had processed it for the last five years to every individual on the coast, the member probably still would have disliked what might be the outcome, because that's the role of opposition, and I get that.
The fact of the matter, though, is that this coast needs some direction, decisions and leadership. We're going to try and do that. Quite frankly, my experience with a lot of this stuff is that you can sit around and talk about these things till the nth degree. You can make suggestions and then have compromises. At the end of the day did you really build a future for the sector? The challenge that I face is the latter.
Can we get to what I would believe and what government would believe would be an opportunity to build a future for the sector? That's what this process has been all about. There hasn't been an individual who's asked to talk to me about this, whether it be in Victoria or in my constituency office, whom I haven't tried to make myself available to, to talk about issues on the coast and other things not just exclusive to the process that was being conducted and facilitated.
Not that I was dragging the puck or anything, but we don't have the overall provincial numbers here. We do have the coast. So 84 percent of the takeback has been completed on the coast, and 100 percent of that has been allocated out.
B. Simpson: I'm tempted to go to the availability question. With that 84 percent…. Okay, so if the minister doesn't have the provincial breakdown, the coast breakdown, what was the stated intent of the breakdown of the 20-percent clawback? Some were supposed to go to woodlots, some to B.C. Timber Sales and some to first nations. What was the stated intent of the reallocation on a percentage basis?
Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding of the stated intent was somewhere in the vicinity of 45 to 50 percent of the wood for BCTS and first nations and a smaller percentage for community forests and woodlots and smaller tenures.
I can give the member what's happened on the coast to date. On the coast 46 percent of the reallocation went to B.C. Timber Sales; 100 percent of that has been allocated out. Forty-five percent of it was to come to first nations; 73 percent of that has been allocated out. A portion, about 5 percent, went to community forests; 93 percent of that has been allocated out, and 4 percent is still there for woodlots. None of that has been allocated out because there are some other issues on woodlots that we're working out.
B. Simpson: With respect to the woodlot program, which was supposed to be a big portion of this, my understanding is the woodlot program was supposed to be doubled. Has that goal been achieved?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, we have not achieved that goal, and I don't know that we will in the foreseeable short-term future. The concentration within the ministry has been to concentrate on community forests as a bigger priority at this stage in time because of how it impacts on more people and brings benefit to communities.
That wasn't any more than a specific direction from myself — that I felt that should be the priority on the time constraints that my staff had to spend time on, and that we would work as we are with the woodlot federation to look at streamlining of their operations and to get their structure of operations in a place they were way more comfortable with going forward before we would expand the woodlot program.
B. Simpson: Just so that I'm clear, that was a promise made four years ago of expanding and doubling the woodlot program that still hasn't been accomplished, and the minister is admitting that that may not happen for some time yet to come. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: It is correct that that was a commitment made four years ago. It's not correct that we haven't done anything. We have expanded some woodlots. We just haven't reached the 100-percent level.
Quite frankly, there has been such an interest in the community forest program — and from a lot of the member's own colleagues' ridings, as well, asking us to accelerate and concentrate on those — that I made the decision that for the time being I would like our guys to concentrate on getting those invitations to apply and those operating areas identified so that we would know what wood we had available to do the doubling of the woodlot program, and where, as we move through this.
I just felt that the two parallels were probably going to delay some opportunities for communities that I didn't want to see delayed. The woodlot federation — actually, I've spoken to them about this — had an understanding of that.
There is still a commitment to the woodlot program. But the member is right. When the commitment was made, I don't know whether there was a time line attached to it or not. The decision was made that the first step would be community forests. We will do whatever woodlots we can and identify them now, and we will continue to do them. It's just a matter of timing and resources at this stage.
[ Page 6861 ]
B. Simpson: With respect to community forests, the minister is indicating that it's 5 percent of the reallocation, 93 percent of which has been allocated. How much of that fibre is actually coming into the marketplace from community forests, on a percentage basis?
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll give the member the numbers. This is actual timber harvest. For community forests, in 2003-2004 it was 273,693 cubic metres. In 2004-05 it was 227,040. In 2005-06 it went up to 810,173 cubic metres. And in '06-07 it went up to 1.357 million–plus cubic metres.
B. Simpson: That's coastal community forests?
Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's the whole province.
B. Simpson: I thought the numbers were a little high. It's difficult to go from a coastal breakdown of allocation and then get the breakdown.
If we could concentrate on the coast, let's do it that way, because as the minister is aware, the buzz right now on the coast is the critical log shortage that we have there. What everybody was worried about was that the 20-percent clawback would end up being a black hole. At the truck logger's convention that was made mention of. In the truck logger's convention magazine it's explicitly stated that that's part of the problem with the log shortage on the coast.
Is it possible to find out what percentage — just the percentage basis, because the numbers don't mean anything unless you know what the total allocation is — of the community forests is actually finding its way into the log market?
Hon. R. Coleman: We can query our harvest billing system and get it right down by individual community forests and what's coming to market for the member. We can't do it now, but we will get that information for the member.
B. Simpson: With respect, because one of the coastal issues…. Again, my understanding from a due diligence perspective on any kind of coastal plan is that the log shortage would be looked at and all of the inputs from the various allocations would be looked at. My expectation is that some of that briefing material might have been made available to the minister, and hence my questions.
We've got 45 percent of that reallocation that went to first nations. The minister spoke at length about the first nations and how the FRAs and FROs — forest range agreements and forest and range opportunities — are working. The indication here is that 73 percent of that 45 percent has been allocated. In this case, how much of that wood is making its way into the marketplace? Again, a percentage basis is fine.
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the percentages for the member, but not enough, quite frankly, and not fast enough for my liking — or, I suppose, for a lot of people's. I think one of the things that will come through our coast recovery plan will be an investment that we will try and make to actually increase the capacity for first nations to be able to get the wood out, and to find opportunities for them to work with the private sector and work with other first nations to have success.
There's no question that the capacity-building here will need some work. I am committed to that, very much so, because I think it's an important aspect. It would be good if it was on the market at any given time, because it would obviously create more dynamics as far as the wood supply is concerned.
I think we have to recognize that we've given first nations the opportunity. The First Nations Forestry Council, which is made up of people that are on the First Nations Leadership Council, meet with me on a pretty regular basis. It's one of the issues they've identified as well. We're working on some basic projects with them to come up with ideas and their recommendations with regards to how we can build that capacity quicker to get these people to have the opportunity to have success on the land base.
B. Simpson: It's actually interesting, the minister's language, because in 2003 that same language was used:
"Increasing first nations access to timber will open up opportunities for them to develop local forest resources, create more jobs, bring more timber to markets. In addition, the province will continue to work with first nations to build their forest management and development capacity by encouraging joint ventures among industry, logging contractors, first nations, etc."
That seems like a four-year time period where we haven't accomplished much, because the exact same language is being used.
With respect to the first nations, what role does the new relationship play in creating uncertainty on the land base with respect to getting logs to market, with respect to investment? Has the minister been apprised by the industry what any issues are surrounding the new relationship?
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the goal was there four years ago, and it's a laudable goal. The fact of the matter is that after that, we started to work on forest and range opportunities language with first nations, which took some time.
When I became the minister we had done a number of forest and range opportunities. They were called forest and range agreements at that time. Through the new relationship there were some language changes to make them FROs rather than FRAs, which is opportunities — some language which recognized some of the rights of first nations within the agreements, which quite frankly accelerated the number we've signed in the last 18 months or so with first nations.
I don't want the member to think there aren't successful first nations operations out there. There are. Some of the first nations have done very good capacity-
[ Page 6862 ]
building with their logging operations and their forest operations, and are continuing to do that. Some of them, through the First Nations Leadership Council, will also be used to help other first nations so they can get on the land base and have their successes.
At the same time we recognize that an investment and some assistance to help first nations are important, so we've worked that through with the First Nations Forestry Council and the ministry on a number of issues with regards to that. As more first nations have success, I think you'll see more acceleration of those that get on the land base and have success too.
I don't think anybody should think that just because you award the quarterly money and the operating area, that automatically gets things going. This is about capacity and opportunity. It's about building first nations communities within the new relationship, and I think that's been very important.
With regards to the new relationship, we've had conversations with people from COFI and other organizations across B.C. — and, frankly, even some individual companies — who actually appreciate the effort we're making on the new relationship. There were an awful lot of roadblocks, as the member would know, that were basically put in the way of success on the land base because there wasn't a good relationship being built on the land base in regards to resource management.
Frankly, I think it's a long road. It's going to be a lot of work. I do believe, quite frankly, that it's important that we do it. It's really important that we make this thing work in cooperation with government and first nations and communities.
That probably describes it as best as I can for the member. I don't believe that the volume should ever be referred to as a black hole. It's volume that will come out as the first nations build capacity, and it will be there for the long term for the forest sector.
I think it's an important piece of the puzzle for making sure that we have a long-term sustainable relationship on the land base between first nations communities and forestry.
B. Simpson: I agree that it is a laudable goal. What we're calling into question is how to get to that. I think that four years of not making progress and using the same words in order to look at what's going ahead….
I would also remind the minister that it's his government that challenged Nisga'a, when they were in opposition. It was his government that did the referendum on first nations rights in their first term. In court case after court case, there were attempts to extinguish first nations rights, and it was only recently that the government woke up to the new relationship.
Now the minister stated that as far as he's concerned, COFI and others have approached him and said that they're happy with how things are going. That's a refrain that the minister has: everybody's happy. So I'm not sure what's happening, whether his phone calls are getting screened or what, because there are a lot of unhappy people out there in the industry just now.
On January 19 there was a submission to government from the new relationship — First Nation Consultation and Accommodation: A Business Perspective. The Council of Tourism Associations, Business Council of B.C., B.C. Chamber of Commerce, COFI, Mining Association, Coast Forest Products Association, the B.C. Utilities Advisory Council and the Salmon Farmers Association all came together. Two of those groups are in the minister's file — COFI and Coast Forest Products Association.
In that discussion paper presented to government, it says:
"Many industries in British Columbia are experiencing a great deal of frustration at the pace, content and lack of clarity of first nation consultation process. Also missing is a cohesive vision on how best to implement court rulings on consultation and accommodation in a meaningful and practical way."
The bullet highlighted in the report says:
"The New Relationship Business Group" — again, which COFI and Coast Forest Products are members of — "urges the government of British Columbia and the First Nations Leadership Council to urgently engage on reaching a timely resolution of the consultation and accommodation issue. It has been over 18 months since the new relationship promised to 'establish effective procedures for consultation and accommodation.' The lack of policy direction and shared vision is frustrating government officials, first nations and industry."
I think there's a disconnect between the minister saying that COFI's telling him they're happy with things, and COFI signing on to a document that states that they're not happy. They are in fact very frustrated, and I hear that frustration everywhere I go, from first nations and industry and also from ministry staff.
Nobody seems to understand what the new relationship means, and there's a direct association between that and these FRAs and FROs, which I pointed out to the minister yesterday — that the Auditor General has called into question their efficacy as well, particularly in the possibility that they get in the way of the treaty process.
There is some context that this isn't working for a whole lot of people. The minister can stand here and say that people are happy with it, but there is evidence here to the contrary.
My question is: what are first nations saying that they need to make these FRAs and now the new FROs work? What is the minister being told directly by first nations is necessary to not just get that volume out but to build the capacity?
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, look: they say it's better. I didn't say it was perfect, but you know what? I get a little tired of the member opposite thinking that he has got some brush to fix all first nations issues in British Columbia. We have the courts to deal with, we have consultation, and we have respect for people. There is a group of people in this province that were disproportionately treated by successive governments over generations that we are today trying to build a
[ Page 6863 ]
new relationship with so they can have strong communities for their people in British Columbia.
My message to people who want to write letters like that is: you better learn to work together with the first nations in British Columbia because this government is committed to a number of things. One of them is economic opportunities on the land base, and FROs and FRAs will get us there over time.
The Auditor General doesn't know how to operate a forest. If he wants to say that it should have moved quicker, he can say that. But I can tell you, hon. Member, that we are going to stand behind our forest and range opportunity agreements. We are going to work with first nations, and we are going to help them make them successful because we believe it is important for them to have those economic opportunities in their communities to have sustainable communities long term.
We also believe that by doing this and working with first nations, we can improve a whole bunch of other aspects for them — aspects of education outcomes, health outcomes, community strength for those first nations. We can build a new relationship, and a new relationship is something that takes time and work and commitment on both sides.
It means that other people who operate on the land base need to recognize how they will work with first nations going forward. I think it's absolutely critical that we do it. At the same time, I get feedback from these people who tell me that it is better than it was. It's better for them working on the land base than it was five years ago or ten years ago, and they recognize that the courts actually direct a lot of stuff here. Also, the member should recognize that we can't define consultation and accommodation on every given little piece of opportunity on the land base because there is a court system that defines that as well.
The fact of the matter is — and I'm proud of this, frankly, as a minister — that we've put out more FROs and FRAs in 18 months than had been done in the previous years. I'm proud of the fact that we're trying to help these people build capacity. I'm proud of the fact that we're working with them on opportunities.
I'm also proud to celebrate the successes that are happening out there with some of these groups, because it's important to recognize that. We have a first nation in Williams Lake. Their licence supports the band's harvesting company, Klatassine Resources Ltd., and supplies logs to the Sigurdson Bros. sawmill, who employ 15 to 20 band members. That's a success.
The In-SHUCK-ch Nation celebrated a formal send-off of their first load of logs on February 1, 2007. They have an arrangement with Lizzie Bay Logging, co-ownership in the purchase of Interfor's forestry licence in the Squamish district.
They're starting to build capacity, and it's going to take time. But it's important that we have the patience to make that happen and work with first nations to make that happen. I think it's critical, quite frankly, not just to the forest sector in B.C. but to the relationship on the land base as a whole, the relationship that we in humanity should have with people in our communities — especially first nations, who I believe should have the same opportunities on the land base, capacity and opportunity, that the rest of our generations have enjoyed.
We will build that new relationship. We will continue to build that new relationship. We are the leading jurisdiction in the country building a relationship with first nations. We have better measurements and investment in first nations in all aspects than any jurisdiction I know of in this country.
Quite frankly, the people in the industry, the people on the land base, have got to work in a relationship with first nations for success. The sooner those that would say it will never work start to learn that, they'll have more success because they will build a relationship with first nations.
There are examples in every area of this province where companies and communities of first nations work together successfully, and there will be more and more as a result of the initiatives with regards to the forest and range opportunities.
Interjection.
B. Simpson: I guess.
Hon. Chair, the minister's words are quite interesting — to go on a rant about new relationship when we've had four years of this government attempting to extinguish first nations rights. That was the track record of the government.
H. Bains: Fighting the Nisga'a.
B. Simpson: Fighting Nisga'a, a referendum, doing the first nations court cases. The minister still talks about land base decisions being done through the courts. We had examples today where the minister failed to exercise the new relationship in the case of the release of the private lands, under his watch.
We've got a situation in which the ministry has a structure called forest and range agreements which were heavily contested by first nations, including going to a court case, in which they were deemed unconstitutional by the court case. They've now become forest and range opportunities, which are still a stopgap measure.
The minister can say: "You know, we've done more than in the last 15 years." It's because they didn't exist before that. There were other ways first nations got access to the land base — larger volumes, more sustainable volumes and more sustainable logging operations as a result. So the minister can go off on his New Age new relationship rant all he wants. The facts and the history of the government speak otherwise.
My question to the minister, however, was very deliberate and explicit: what is it that first nations are telling the minister or his staff that they need in order to get the volume allocations from forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities out the door and into the market?
[ Page 6864 ]
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, my frustration with the question…. Actually, I'm not going to go with my frustration. I did say, when I made my comments a minute ago, that in the past 18 months more went out than in 15 years. The fact of the matter is that somebody actually took an initiative to try and do forest and range opportunities to build a relationship with first nations. I think we should applaud that.
Just because this government did it versus a previous government…. I think the member should recognize that these are good. Now the member says they're a problem — the treaty. They're da-da-da and all of this other stuff. Quite frankly, they aren't. They're not an interim measure. They're not put in place as anything to do with treaty. The reason they're done is to accelerate the opportunity for first nations to have an opportunity on the land base in forestry in British Columbia. So they come with not just fibre; they also come with quarterly payments to the first nation to help them build some of that capacity within their own organization.
We fund a First Nations Forestry Council. We work with that First Nations Forestry Council and fund studies and work with them with regards to opportunities to improve FRAs and FROs on the land base. We do that because we're trying to find the solutions. Now, some of those solutions could be how we streamline process for them, what the pricing of the stumpage is or how it's calculated with regards to a forest and range opportunity. It could be issues in and around how we can help them with documents to build joint ventures or whatever the case may be.
We've committed to them that we're going to put the horsepower behind this to help them be successful. Quite frankly, the leadership will come from the First Nations Forestry Council, which is part of the first nations leadership. They are the people that have the direct representation and relationship with the first nations on the ground, who will actually build those successes with us.
B. Simpson: I'll remind the minister that I did not say there was a problem with the treaty process. I suggest that the minister go read the Auditor General's report and see what the Auditor General says about the forest and range agreements. That's what I referenced.
The second thing. The minister is saying that it's an opportunity on the land base. That's what I'm calling into question. How much of an opportunity is this on the land base? I've asked the minister twice now: what is it that first nations are saying are the problems with them getting the volume into the marketplace?
We have a critical shortage of logs on the coast. I did not use the term "black hole." I said that at the time the 20-percent takeback was done, people at that time indicated to the government that they were concerned it would create a black hole, not just for first nations, but woodlots, BCTS, etc.
That black hole has in fact been created. What I'm trying to understand is: what is it that the first nations are telling the minister needs to be done to get the volume into the marketplace, particularly on the coast?
Hon. R. Coleman: We are giving them assistance on compiling plans — technical assistance that they've asked for; technical assistance on some of the issues in and around doing the plans and the work to be done. We're going to provide them with that, and we are.
The First Nations Forestry Council and COFI are putting together workshops in Vancouver bringing first nations groups together and potential purchasers and partners of the logs so that they can start to build partnerships between each other. That was something they also asked us to do with them. We are, as I said earlier, looking at efficiencies and planning and pricing and those sort of things as they've asked us to do, and we are going to continue to do that. I think that you'll, hopefully, find — I hope we find — over the next year that even more first nations get more active on the land base.
I also don't think it should be left without saying that the shortage of the logs on the coast should not be pointed at any time or direction at the first nations tenure that is on the coast. There's a $240 market today. There's not a whole lot of incentive to go logging if you can't get the price. So there is what's being cut and also, frankly, even some of the licensees aren't cutting their cut because of economy.
There are challenges outside of that, but I do believe that in answer to the member's question, and I'll repeat it, we're providing them with information to compile plans, a system; providing technical assistance and funding that; providing workshop assistance and working with the First Nations Leadership Council and the forest committee with regards to their requests and how we can do that; and bringing potential partners together. We will build this thing incrementally over the next number of months and years.
B. Simpson: Is the government also being told that the five-year, non-renewable, small volume, often difficult-to-access and poor profile are also problems associated with these forest and range agreements?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, hon. Member. Mind you, the location and everything of cutblocks and fibre…. That is not a germane comment made by just first nations. I get that from everybody. Whether they've got a good one or a bad one or they think they do, they always think there's another, better piece of logging over there versus over here. So that's actually something that the minister lives with almost daily.
However, there is a specific group for the First Nations Forestry Council that is looking at it and will more than likely come back to us with recommendations and comments with regards to length of tenure and stuff. We've told them that we will look at that when they're ready to sit down with us.
B. Simpson: With respect to the First Nations Forestry Council, what's the financial structure of that? Who pays for that? Does that come out of the Ministry of Forests and Range, and if so, what's the budget allocation for it?
[ Page 6865 ]
The minister has got some staff coming in with an answer to that previous question.
With respect to the FTEs assigned, how is that structured within the Ministry of Forests and Range with respect to these forest and range agreements? Do they have specialists in the district offices who do forest and range agreements? Are there a certain number of FTEs, full-time-equivalents, allocated to the work with forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities?
Hon. R. Coleman: It's not a separate line item in the budget, so I can tell the member what I have. We have a 14-person team in Victoria. That 14-person team in Victoria works particularly on forest and range opportunities and other first nations opportunities and coordination, as well as some of the legal documentation, I would assume.
We have a small group in each regional office that actually deals with forest and range opportunities as well as other issues that come along with regards to first nations work — consultation and that sort of thing.
On the odd occasion we will contract out for specific negotiations and what have you to the private sector if it's a specialty that's required by someone who is good at a particular field with regards to first nations.
B. Simpson: The minister mentioned the coastal undercut. While he mentioned that, what was the coastal undercut this year, last year and the one previous to that? What was the volume that was undercut?
Hon. R. Coleman: For the first question, for the First Nations Forestry Council, it's $500,000 for operations in '06-07 and $500,000 for '07-08 as well — for each year. For the cut on the coast, we only have estimate numbers for '07-08, but it's about 14 million cubic metres.
B. Simpson: It's late in the day so my brain is having a hard time keeping track. Let me just clarify a couple of things.
First, I just want to be crystal-clear that the Ministry of Forests' allocation to the First Nations Forestry Council comes out as a cost under the Ministry of Forests and Range budget. If I understood the minister correctly, it was $500,000 for '06-07 and $500,000 for '07-08. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Coleman: It is within our budget. It's for a budgeted item in our operations. It's half a million dollars this year and half a million dollars next year for the First Nations Forestry Council.
B. Simpson: The question of the undercut on the coast. What was the AAC for last year, and what was the level harvested then? I didn't catch the number. It's 14 million–something, but I didn't catch it — relative to the AAC. If the minister can tell me what the annual allowable cut was supposed to be and what the actual harvest was.
Hon. R. Coleman: The annual allowable cut on the coast is approximately 17 million cubic metres. The harvest last year was estimated at 14 million cubic metres. So those would be the two numbers.
B. Simpson: Again, I refer back to the revitalization plan, which points this out as something that was wrong with the coastal industry. It stated then that during the '90s the average harvest level from public land over the past five years had been more than 20 percent below annual allowable cut. It gives the numbers for that, says it's unfavourable economics and that the revitalization strategy is going to fix all of that. So we still have a substantive undercut on the coast that hasn't been rectified after four years of this plan.
With respect to the log shortage, the undercut is part of it. The minister indicated I was trying to suggest that it was only the forest and range agreements, which is simply not the case. The undercut is part of the log shortage, and there are a bunch of reasons for that, economics and environmental. The clawback volume not making its way into the marketplace is part of that. Then, another significant part is the issue of the tenure control on the coast.
My question to the minister is: has the minister had complaints from individuals to his office about the monopolistic situation that is present on Vancouver Island?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, there have been some expressions of concern by some people with regards to that issue.
B. Simpson: I guess not everybody is happy with that.
Why did the minister not intervene and prevent Western Forest Products from getting that monopoly when he had the opportunity to do so?
Hon. R. Coleman: We're just trying to find some numbers that might have helped with some of the things I wanted to say to the member, but I don't have them. That was with regards to investment by this particular company that we know has taken place since the time their consolidations started to take place.
The decision was made based on the fact that I didn't believe we should interfere in the marketplace — that we had an organization that was prepared to make a purchase on the coast in a difficult environment, that was going to commit to investment on the coast, which they've started to flow through, both through their investment in Cowichan Bay and others.
You know, I think there's a place for government in setting policy and direction to set a foundation for investment and how we can on the land base. I don't know that there's a place in government to say who should sell to whom and why and to interfere in that process. There is a process federally. The Competition Bureau can look at these things, if they wish.
Quite frankly, the decision was made based on the fact that I felt it was the right decision not to interfere in the marketplace at the time.
[ Page 6866 ]
B. Simpson: In the Forest Act changes in 2003, one responsibility was left for the minister to interfere in the marketplace, and that responsibility was to prevent monopoly over fibre. It was explicitly left to prevent not only the oligopoly that we've got but also the monopolistic situation that we've got.
In the revitalization plan it even speaks to that. It says: "The Ministry of Forests will continue to review transfers to ensure that control over the timber supply does not become overly concentrated." In the minister's estimation, particularly on Vancouver Island, is the coastal tenure and timber supply overly concentrated?
Hon. R. Coleman: With the takeback and the mixture of the concentration and the information was that was before me at the time, I made the decision. I stand by the decision.
B. Simpson: My question was: does the minister think that it's now overly concentrated?
Hon. R. Coleman: When we looked that this, I looked at it as the coast being all one market, because of the water transport and the access to water, which is a fairly reasonable way to move fibre — for the way fibre does move into marketplaces. Even mills in Alberni are actually cutting fibre that is coming off the Charlottes and from other areas. And those mills and other wood moves….
The concentration of the top five tenure holders and the top ten tenure holders on the coast has actually gone down each year since 2001. Now, that's not to say, because I won't anticipate the member's next question, that there might be areas where there's a concern about overconcentration, but overall on the coast, I felt that there was enough there that this thing could be balanced.
B. Simpson: I guess we've got a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes overcontrol.
All the feedback that I get — and I cannot believe that the minister isn't getting it as well — is that Western Forest Products has an untenable position on the coast, particularly on Vancouver Island. It is the monopoly. It's the only game in town. It's the only major employer if you're a harvester, regardless of whether you've got a BCTS sale or not. And it is a significant problem.
My question to the minister…. The legislation is explicit. It says that the minister…. The Competition Council is not supposed to make this decision. The minister is supposed to do what the revitalization strategy said, and that is to prevent overconcentration of fibre. When the minister was briefed on this, did staff brief the minister that this would end up being a monopolistic situation and suggest to the minister that he consider not doing it?
Particularly, there were two purchases at the same time. There were two deals at the same time: the deal with Canfor and the deal for Cascadia. The minister had the opportunity to stop the deal with Canfor as an explicit way to prevent the monopoly on Vancouver Island that occurred as a result of that. Was the minister counselled by staff to exercise that obligation in the Forest Act and prevent that sale from going through?
Hon. R. Coleman: I was presented with a number of pros and cons. I looked at the pros and cons and said: "This is the decision I'm going to make."
Some of the pros were some concerns about some concentration in some areas about fibre, but you had to weigh that against whether the concentration was on fibre or the concentration was on the sawmilling side. You had to weigh that against whether the market forces and mechanisms would balance this out over time.
In one market in particular, in cedar, it has done that. By simply raising the stumpage on cedar, they've had to put more cedar back on the market, because they've found out that by having less on the market, they paid us more money.
This was done on balance. The member can disagree with my decision at the time. I'm a big boy. I have to live with the decisions I made as the minister. I took all of it on balance. There was no specific recommendation of do or don't given to me. I discussed the issues, I canvassed them with my staff, I weighed them on balance, and I made the decision.
B. Simpson: I would just say to the minister that he's not the only one that has to live with the decisions. So does everybody on the coast — all the people who are now affected by the fact that we have a monopolistic situation. We have a shortage of fibre, we have volume that isn't making its way into the marketplace, and we have people who aren't getting fair value for their work on the land base because of the monopolistic situation. The minister living with his decision is moot. It's what everybody else had to live with at the time.
Let me be clear. Was one of the cons an explicit statement by staff that this would create a monopoly, particularly on Vancouver Island, with advice to the minister of the implications of that monopoly for other aspects of the revitalization strategy?
Hon. R. Coleman: I've told the member that I had a number of pieces of information in front of me. There was nothing specifically talking about a monopoly or anything like that. There was concern about some concentration here but also of what the benefits could be over there.
The member says they're living with the results of this on the coast. Well, the results are that you actually have a company that's making investments on the coast. Ask the people in Ladysmith whether they wanted the Saltair mill to reopen? I mean, the fact of the matter is that it opened because they made an investment in the coast. You could sit back and say: "Let's not have anybody grow as a company, and let's watch all of them die." You could actually decide to do that.
I felt that on balance, after weighing the information in front of me, this was the best decision at the time for the forest sector on the coast. I stand by that decision, because I think that over time you will see that the market mechanisms…. Our economists are
[ Page 6867 ]
actually starting to see that now — to actually see a balance come to the coast with regards to it.
I know the member wants to talk about the undercut on the coast and the issues with regards to that and to blame it on a company and not recognize market forces, the price of logs today, the type of winter we may have had and the fact that we as successive governments have taken less and less of the land base out of the working forests in British Columbia because of other things we've put onto the land base — which all create challenges for us.
Quite frankly, the decision was made. As I said to the member, I stand by the decision. I felt I'd balanced all the information in front of me at the time and made the decision in the best interest of the province. I made that decision.
I know we'll canvass this more as we go into further estimates, hon. Chair, but for the moment I would suggest that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.
The committee met at 2:39 p.m.
On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,494,380,000 (continued).
S. Simpson: I just wanted to take a few minutes of time to ask some questions — probably more to have a bit of a discussion with the minister rather than asking specific questions. It was motivated a little bit by a comment the minister made yesterday when I was in the committee. The minister talked about how she acknowledges that it's important for this ministry not to stand still in terms of its work.
I paraphrase, and I'm sure the minister will correct me, but the ministry always needs to be striving to look at how it does things and what its practices are, how it can do things better in the future and to always challenge itself to make improvements and to be self-critical in order to see how it can do things that will be better for our children and for the education system in general. I appreciated that comment, and I know it's challenging to do that with a big and complex ministry like Education.
What I really want to talk about a little bit is that my constituency in Vancouver-Hastings. I know the minister talked about Vancouver funding, and I don't necessarily want to talk about the specifics of Vancouver funding, but I have this constituency where…. I think there is an assessment that maybe one in four children in British Columbia is deemed to be vulnerable in some way, shape or form. In Vancouver-Hastings the assessment I have is one in two. It's a very challenging place, and there are constituencies like mine around the province, I'm sure.
There is a lot of poverty. There are vulnerable kids. For a lot of kids the only stable place that they have in their lives is when they go to school. That's the best stability they have, and that's where their best role models are, whether they are teachers, other students or whatever it is. That's where they find the supports that they need.
There are a lot of inner-city issues. There are community school issues. There are English-as-a-second-language issues. We know the ministry funds — understandably so — sort of per student, with some additional support around inner city or other funding. The question I'd ask the minister to comment on is: how does the ministry start to get at some of those challenges that a simple funding formula can't address?
I know why it's done that way, and I'm not sure I have an answer of a better way to do it, but how do you get at that? What's the thinking of the ministry on how to get at those challenges of the most vulnerable kids in some of the more challenging areas of the province?
Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite is correct in the way that he paraphrased the thinking that we have in the ministry about trying to find new ways to approach meeting student needs, because one of our concerns is those very vulnerable children. I wasn't aware that the number, off the top of my head, is that high in the member's riding.
I don't think there is an easy answer. I think it's going to be an ongoing, complex situation for us to try to work on. We are developing relationships in new ways across government with ministries. I mean, that sounds like a somewhat bureaucratic answer, but I
[ Page 6868 ]
think we do need to look at how our resources are used together. So we're working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, for example, to try to help identify students earlier and to work with the Minister of State for Childcare and use the information that Clyde Hertzman has provided for us with EDI results.
I think we're trying to be strategic. I think we are trying to look at where we can assist with resources, and I think StrongStart British Columbia is one of those alternatives — the new early learning programs that we are going to put all across the province. Our first pilots tried to look at vulnerable neighbourhoods and vulnerable schools and worked with districts to identify those. I think the challenge we face is that schools really reflect society, and they reflect the neighbourhoods we live in. So if those problems of poverty and other things exist in a community, they are going to exist in a school.
I think one of my hopes is that…. I'm sure the member and I will be chatting about this as we go through our legislative cycle as well. Some of the things we're talking about in terms of achievement plans and new resources to assist school districts are to talk about what we can do together to improve circumstances for all of our children. It's hard for me to pinpoint for the member opposite a strategy that would say it's all about just more money. I actually don't believe that.
I think we're always going to want more resources in education and health care, but I do think it's about looking at new approaches. I'm confident that by working with school boards and bringing additional staffing resources, for example, maybe we can have some progress and some discussions about the kinds of issues that are impacting the member's families.
S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I would agree with the minister. I think there may need to be more money, but I don't think it's all about money. I'm not sure that all the resources that need to be there are, but money isn't going to solve the problem. I would agree with that.
The challenge that I see, I guess, is…. When I've had the opportunity to look at this issue and to look at schools…. My daughter went to quite a large elementary school in Vancouver-Hastings, and she now goes to Vancouver Tech, which is a large secondary school. I believe the minister visited Van Tech. I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the principal of Van Tech the other day. I try to talk to the principals as often as I can.
We were talking about the makeup of Van Tech as a school. There are about 1,650 kids at Van Tech, and as Mr. Derpak, the principal, told me, they have 220 special needs kids. They have 300 children that have been identified by government as vulnerable — and he would tell me the number is much larger than that by those who have not been assessed — and 141 first nations kids at the school. Almost 10 percent of the population is first nations, and out of the 1,650, 1,100 of them are ESL. Very complex.
We were talking about this. He had reported out to the PAC — I'm sure he knew that it was going to get back to me, and he was happy to have that happen — that they had 180 Bill 33 violations, and they've corrected them. They've worked with them. They've got some additional staff. He said: "That's how complex it was." He's a very capable administrator in a very good school. But that's just how tough it was. It continues to be tough, and he's struggling. Mr. Derpak would be the first person to tell you: "It's not all about money." I know that.
I talked to him, and then I went and talked to other educators, to parents, to the district parents, to academics. They all seemed to be saying something that's similar. People who are paying attention are saying: "We have to think about how we deal with this in a different way." I'm glad the minister says that that's a priority for her.
I guess the question, then, for the minister is not: what's the solution? I know it's not that easy. But what are the processes that the minister sees to bring all of those kinds of people together — parents, education activists, trustees, politicians when appropriate — and begin to talk about how we get at those issues in those communities where vulnerable kids are there and there's a risk? What is that process to get at that?
Hon. S. Bond: I think there are a number of avenues for doing that. I can honestly say that one of my disappointments in a process that I had held out more hope for, and there may well be more hope than I'm assigning to it at the moment…. I think the provincial Learning Roundtable is a very good place to have some of that discussion. There we have representatives of key groups.
I fully recognize that not every group is represented there, and I certainly have had much debate and discussion about that. But there we have the educational leaders representing a number of partners. I think it's time we actually sat down and had meaningful discussion about issues like the circumstances that impact our children when they get to the classroom.
Obviously, there are a lot of issues. That particular working group has concentrated on class size to this point. I am hopeful that we can actually have some of that discussion that would help us as partners in education to say: "You know, it's time we actually sat down and tried to figure out how to make a difference here." I think that's one way.
I think that our hosting of congresses at the provincial level, where we bring together parents or teachers or students or various groups of people to actually grapple with the issue, not district-specific necessarily but talking about the big picture…. The member opposite is right. Those circumstances exist in various places in British Columbia.
I'm hopeful that as we look, for example, at legislative change, which would bring a responsibility around achievement, where it would bring new personnel to assist school boards in that discussion, that instead of being frightened by that thinking, in terms of changes like that, we could actually look at embracing some
[ Page 6869 ]
change here and suggesting we can't keep doing things the same way forever and just hope that those children will be taken care of.
One thing I can say…. The member opposite is correct. I did visit Van Tech. It is a very large, very complex school, but I can you this: I was incredibly impressed with the educational leadership that I saw being exhibited at the school, and I know the member is recognizing that as well.
One of the things that administration did…. I wish I had a copy of my journal where I could actually…. I write a journal and Post-it of each of those visits. I recall that one of the very strategic planning tools that the administration uses is assessment. They actually look at individual students and talk about: what can we do to help these children?
As they begin to experience success, we've seen things like violent behaviour drop in that school, and there has been a really conscious strategic effort to improve the circumstances for students in that school. It was very impressive. That is a very large school with a complex set of students.
I think there are a number of avenues. I am hopeful that the Learning Roundtable continues to allow us a place where we can have those kinds of very important policy discussions that could shape public education in this province. I hope we can actually get to the point of having some of the very discussions that the member has brought to the floor.
S. Simpson: I appreciate that. It's a school that I've gotten to know very well, as much out of self-interest because my daughter is a grade 10 student at Van Tech. I look at it as a parent as well as a representative for the school in this place here.
The minister is quite right. It's a very complex school with a very challenging student population, and the administration and the whole staff there have done an excellent job to reduce some of the behaviours you want to reduce, to raise the academic levels. I'm very proud of the work that they do there.
But it's interesting. The minister talked about assessment. I had the opportunity last year to meet with a couple of the counsellors from Van Tech and, having had discussions with the principal again this year and with others at the school, the circumstances are the same. The challenge they face there, as the counsellors will tell me, is that they have many, many children that they know are on the bubble to be at risk.
They will acknowledge they are not spending the time with those kids that they should be because they have a whole other group of kids who have already stepped off the edge, and they've got to focus their attention there because the risk is immediate, and it's right now. They feel that struggle because they know there are children that they should be doing preventive work with, but they simply have to deal with these kids where the risk and the crisis are much more immediate. That's a challenge, and I know that becomes a dollars challenge.
But when I look at that and then I look at…. This is more elementary, but I had the opportunity to meet with the vice-president of the United Way the other day to talk about their programs. As the minister may know, they've restructured a little bit in the United Way of the Lower Mainland and otherwise, to target. They're targeting zero to six and then kids six to 12 — targeting programs there — and they are targeting seniors. So there is an opportunity.
When I asked the vice-president of the United Way about this — we had a good discussion in my office — he was very keen about the opportunities to be able to partner with schools and with other community agencies to deliver those supports in some ways. So I'd be interested to know how the minister views the partnering with agencies like the United Way and other groups in the community to begin to get at some of these kids at risk and provide supports that the education system funding just isn't right there to provide the counselling for.
Hon. S. Bond: I think that the United Way does some extraordinary work when you look at work like Success By 6. I'm lucky enough, like the member opposite, to have a good working relationship with our United Way in Prince George and have just met recently about the Success By 6 initiatives in particular.
Absolutely, government can't do this alone. I think we have, obviously, some primary responsibility for making sure that we are providing funding and as many resources as possible and working with school districts to set a vision for improvement in the province. I really think that's what we're trying to do, and I understand that causes anxiety for people as we make those changes.
The partnerships are essential to helping children be successful. We would be delighted to — and we do — work regularly with the United Way. We're working with Rotary clubs. We're working with numerous non-profits to try to find a way. Because I think the thing that is always motivating for me — and I know it would be for the member opposite — is that when we work together as a community, we actually have the best chance of being successful.
If there are new and other ideas that we should be considering, I'm more than willing to sit down and have those kinds of conversations. But I do think it's going to take a significant partnership.
I know the member opposite referred to Community LINK. That is an important program. I just want to on the record…. We currently invest $45 million, provincially, in the Community LINK program, and that's for some of those very important things such as programs for those vulnerable children in inner-city schools. Of that, $8 million does go to the Vancouver school district alone. That does speak somewhat of the number and the magnitude of the challenges, but $8 million of that goes to the Vancouver school district.
We're always willing to explore expanding and looking at creative partnerships, and I think we fully recognize — and certainly the people I work with every day know — that we can't do this by ourselves.
[ Page 6870 ]
S. Simpson: I appreciate those comments. I've got just a couple of more comments or questions to the minister. One of them relates to the community school programs.
As the minister will know, Vancouver back a year or so ago restructured its community school program and went to a hub model in areas. There's a big upside to that for a number of schools that didn't have as much service around community schools as they might have had previously. For some schools, of course, it cost them services. That's a bit of the trade-off, and I understand that.
One of the things, though…. The community school model goes across the city. The reality of our city — and I'm sure Prince George would be the same on a bit smaller scale — is that in some neighbourhoods, some areas, the challenges are different and bigger than in other neighbourhoods. Some of those hub schools face much more complexity than some of the others in terms of getting to the real core issues that face families, and the community school model tries to address a whole range of things — from what might be called sort of improving social interaction and things, up to dealing with very difficult challenges.
I know that the ministry provides some support to community schools. The one question I'd have is: has the ministry thought about any specific targeting to provide some additional support into those community school programs — hub model programs — that is targeted at those areas where the vulnerabilities are particularly recognized, maybe more so than kind of the across-the-board funding that goes to everybody? So some recognition of that challenge?
Hon. S. Bond: Certainly when we do the Community LINK funding, one of the benefits of that program is that it is targeted. It is not across the entire province. So if we were to assign that on a per-pupil basis to sort of help districts equally across the province, obviously the contribution to the Vancouver school district would be much less significant.
So in a general way we do try to recognize, through the Community LINK program on an across-the-province basis, that there are some districts who have some pretty extraordinary challenges, particularly with student vulnerability. I think districts would argue that they all, as the member opposite points out, have some degree of that challenge. Community LINK funding is one way of doing that.
I think, though, that we also encourage school districts. We are looking at, in about five or six school districts across the province, a funding model which is much more based on school need than it is on sort of per-school funding across districts. So we're encouraging districts to explore funding those schools differently within their envelope. For example, in Prince George there is an example of the board having made a decision to put extra dollars into some of those schools that would be considered inner-city schools. There is a priority set for that within the school district itself.
We have not, at this point, considered targeting beyond what we do with Community LINK and other things that we've canvassed with the critic around the formula. We added some extra categories around declining enrolment.
Boards really said to us at the beginning of our mandate: "Please don't target." There were some key areas that remain with targets today, but really, boards want flexibility as much as possible to try to use that pot of dollars as effectively as they can. So certainly no intent to target — other than through Community LINK, the way we have at this point.
S. Simpson: I appreciate that comment. I know that the districts want to have as much flexibility as they can to spend where they see fit, and I've got a fair amount of sympathy for that view.
One of the things around this is I know that, as the minister says, in any given district of any significant size you can identify certain schools where the numbers of children who would face challenges as a percentage of the student population, or whatever, are significantly more than they are in other parts of the same district. They have different challenges.
Has the ministry looked at the issue of school-based thresholds, where there's an assessment that says: "Okay, in terms of vulnerable kids — in terms of special needs, in terms of whatever that formula or those categories might be but based on the notion of vulnerability — the threshold of a percentage in that school is more than average, significantly more than what we would deem to be the norm, so that school has particular challenges, and we're prepared to look at that when we talk about resources"?
Hon. S. Bond: No, we have not contemplated a school-based threshold. I think we've done that through Community LINK at a provincial level. We haven't contemplated it at a school level. I'm just trying to recall. There has been at least one district that has asked us to consider a vulnerability index. I believe it was the Prince Rupert school district. I'm trying to remember that. It's getting harder, the older I get, but I think it was Prince Rupert.
We do take those things seriously, and we have a process called the Technical Review Committee which reviews the funding formula each year, mostly to see if we should make adjustments to the formula for equity. We are not considering wholesale changes to how we fund at the moment. We're trying to concentrate on the achievement agenda and looking at individual student success.
I appreciate the member opposite's comments and have just chatted with staff about whether that is something that the Technical Review Committee could or would continue to look at. I think it's fair to say that we would do that. We have had that request from a school district. I wouldn't want to suggest that we were looking at wholesale changes in how we fund; we're just trying to create as equitable a formula as possible. I appreciate the comments and have certainly passed them on to staff. As we continue to explore the evolution of change, I think at some point that might be
[ Page 6871 ]
something we would at least put before the Technical Review Committee.
S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I appreciate that this is a big ship, and it doesn't change directions easily.
The last question that I have really relates to, again, the process of consultation. I know that I'm going to be meeting sometime in the next couple of weeks with the DPAC in Vancouver to talk to them about a number of these issues and other issues related to Vancouver. Of course, some of their issues are much more focused on the board, but some of them focus back on the province because, obviously, the ministry has a very big role to play in education.
I know that these discussions are very live with the district parents. I know they're live with the inner-city parents committee in Vancouver. I want to encourage that discussion and for the parents to drive a lot of that discussion, if possible. I think that's a good place for it to come from, the parents, and for them to involve others in that discussion, including ministry officials.
I would hope that there may be some opportunity to get some ministry officials to maybe engage in some of that discussion with parents. I'd be happy to talk to them about that, to ensure that the ministry people who need to know get a chance to hear that perspective from parents in the district where I happen to live. I'm sure that others would want that, too, but I'll just speak for Vancouver. But to be prepared to sit down…. I certainly would be happy to talk about that with the district parents and to try to help facilitate making sure that discussion happens.
I think it's important that you, the minister, and the officials hear from me, but it's probably more important that they actually hear from the people, the parent activists and the parent representatives, on these issues. I'd be interested to know whether that is a doable thing.
Hon. S. Bond: I am a person who always applauds MLAs who are active in the education communities of their constituencies, because education is not a partisan issue. It's something we all care about. So I appreciate the member's interest in his own DPAC.
I know that when I was in Vancouver, when had my meeting with the Vancouver school board…. I do try to include education partners, so there would have been rep, I would have hoped. I was just reading through my journal. It said "our education partners," but it doesn't list DPAC.
We would be happy to provide a person, if that's helpful, to just be there to answer sort of provincial-level questions. I want to be thoughtful about the school district's mandate in their own district, and the school board, but anything that we could do…. My deputy has assured me that if you contact our office, I would be happy to try to arrange a date that would work.
The other thing is, I have a few more school districts to visit to actually get the first round of all 60. I always very much enjoy meeting with parents. My history is as a parent involved with PAC and DPAC, and all of those things. At some point, as well, we might be able to facilitate an opportunity for us to chat with them together. In the meantime, certainly, the deputy would be happy to arrange someone to facilitate or be a part of listening at that meeting.
S. Simpson: I want to thank the minister for that offer. I'll speak to the leadership of the DPAC and contact the deputy's office at that the time. Certainly, I'm sure that when the minister has finished round 1, hon. Chair, I'll also be happy to take her up on that offer. I will assure her a good audience of parents in Vancouver-Hastings.
B. Ralston: I have a couple of questions that concern schools in Surrey and in particular in my riding, Surrey-Whalley. Last year in estimates I asked the minister some questions, somewhat analogous to the member for Vancouver-Hastings, about community schools. There have been some developments, which I'll just advise the minister of briefly by way of a prologue, and then I'll have a couple of questions to follow up.
The city of Surrey, which got some media attention through the offices of the mayor of the city of Surrey, recently announced a crime reduction strategy after some eight months of consultation. One of the recommendations in the youth intervention and parenting programs is to accelerate the implementation of community schools.
"Community schools provide" — and I'm just reading from the report — "in addition to education, augmented services, resources and expertise to enhance the lives of children and youth who might not be given sufficient support in their homes and who may otherwise be prone to becoming involved in criminal activity at an early age." So there's an endorsement there.
In addition, the Surrey school district — and they do say, as one of the points of consultation, that they spoke with the minister's department — has recently hired…. There was one person who was a community school coordinator, who was essentially self-funded. He did his own fundraising in order to finance a program in two schools, Holly and Hjorth, which are in my riding and would be classified as inner-city schools. The district in Surrey has recently hired, in addition to that person, three community school coordinators, and they've begun a program of advancing a community school agenda, largely in my riding but also in the Newton area of Surrey.
Last year, and also in response this year to the questions of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the minister said that these programs are funded out of the Community LINK program, but there is no particular additional financial recognition of the value of these programs. From what I understand, the district has scrambled to fund these positions. The board is committed to all the values that community schools would bring as focuses of neighbourhood infrastructure and the benefits not only to children and vulnerable youth but to the community as a whole.
[ Page 6872 ]
My question would be, firstly: is the minister aware of this commendable initiative by the district of Surrey? Secondly, what discussions have there been, if any, about ways to support that — assuming, as one would, that this program proves its value?
Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct, and the answer in terms of Community LINK is the same this year in the sense that we have not changed that allocation. Surrey does receive $2.7 million each year for Community LINK funding. I shouldn't say each year, but that is the '06-07 funding number: $2.7 million.
We do provide supplementary programs for school districts that we think help with those kinds of issues, things like Roots of Empathy. We look at programs to deal with crystal meth and a variety of other sort of programmatic things we're doing provincially, but we do not designate community schools as such. There are a number of models that districts are using across the province to provide…. The hub model would be a good example of how you bring services together to better serve students.
To the member opposite's specific question, we are aware of the significant challenges. One of the biggest challenges that district faces is just the sheer numbers of growth. That is one of two districts that, in essence, is growing in the province. We have four that are either stable or growing. As a result of that, maybe to give the member opposite a bit more comfort in terms of the funding for those kinds of programs, in the Surrey school district, in terms of their final operating grant for 2006-2007, there was an increase of $31.5 million last year alone. That is a 7½-percent increase.
We know that school districts have to settle on priorities and make decisions. If setting up the community school concept is important, I'm fairly confident that within that envelope of 31½ million new dollars that there would be an opportunity for them to continue or expand those programs.
B. Ralston: The minister is, of course, correct that Surrey faces the pressures of growth, and that's a distinct contrast to perhaps other school districts in the province, although most of these schools are in well-established neighbourhoods, where the student numbers are relatively constant. They're not experiencing the kind of explosive growth that is evident in newer areas or newly developed areas of Surrey.
I suppose my question is beyond the formula and beyond the increase that's largely per-capita-driven. Is there any plan to recognize the value of these particular programs, particularly if you look at it with an early childhood development lens? Even the work of David Dodge, who is the governor of the Bank of Canada, has commented on the economic value of these kinds of programs — early childhood education — and their ability to save social costs later on and also simply to enable the public education system to recognize learning disabilities and help those students to get through and become productive citizens at the end of the public education system.
We have seen that this might be one area that the minister may wish to consider, at least as an area for future policy development and a consideration of the funding formula.
Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the comments and the thoughts. I absolutely would agree that as we invest in public education and in providing services to students in different ways in school districts, it's absolutely the right investment for us to be making. The question is: how do we do that?
Generally speaking, our view is that the best thing we can do is give school boards as much flexibility as possible. The member is correct in stating that with the current funding model we do not target specifically for those kinds of programs outside of the Community LINK envelope. One of the reasons for that is that not every school district has found the community school model to be the effective model they would prefer, or the model of choice.
I think what we're trying to do is look at concepts like the hub model, which is an important one, and we're partnering with the Ministry of Children and Families in developing that thinking. We're looking at StrongStart centres for early learning in the province. Again, Surrey would be a benefactor of that program.
I think it's fair to say that we have been adding resources in a programmatic way, rather than by targeting dollars to a particular community school concept. Again, as I mentioned to the member opposite who spoke previously, we're always looking at options in terms of how we can better serve school districts. The comments made today will be considered as we see policy evolve over the next number of months.
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for her comments. Again, I have a question that arises out of the city of Surrey crime reduction strategy report.
One of the other recommendations that they speak of is to develop a model and advocate for what they call parenting orders. I'll just read the text here: "That the city work in collaboration with the school district and appropriate provincial authorities to establish a process for the creation of legally binding, negotiated and voluntary parenting orders that would support parents whose children are determined to become involved in crime to become reinvolved with raising their children in a responsible manner."
I'm assuming that since the recommendation focuses, in part, on the school district, there would be a ministry component. Is the minister aware of this proposal, and what is the view of the ministry, at this point, of such a model?
Hon. S. Bond: I was not aware of that recommendation, so I appreciate the information that the member has brought. If at some point the minister…. If the member could just make the ministry….
B. Ralston: Not yet. The aspiring.
[ Page 6873 ]
Hon. S. Bond: I know, I know. Okay, that was a slip, but I know how enthusiastic you are about that. But that's not the discussion for today.
I appreciate the information. If the member would be prepared to share either a copy of a report or at least give us an indication of where that has come from, we'd be happy to discuss it with the superintendent. I'm certain the superintendent would be aware of it, but our ministry, to the best of my knowledge, has not been aware of that recommendation.
We're always looking for partnerships within communities to create healthier and safer schools, so I thank the member. If he would be prepared to share the information, we would have a look at it.
B. Ralston: I'd be much obliged to do so.
One further point from a similar set of recommendations. What they talk about is a school suspension program, and there's a similar recommendation of stakeholders continuing to work and implement what they call the IR3 — intervention, reflect, refocus and reintegration — for children and youth who are suspended from school. "It is important that children and youth are not left to their own devices during the period of the suspension."
Is there a ministry policy? Again, this arises out of youth intervention and parenting programs. It's under the rubric of crime prevention, but it would be focused through the ministry.
Hon. S. Bond: There is not a provincial policy about suspension, or how districts can or should do that. There is actually quite a range of how districts deal with this. Obviously, one of the things that, as we…. Again, this is future legislation. We'll be discussing it, I'm certain, in the House. But the issue of codes of conduct will certainly require there to be consequences. Many districts have them now.
There is a lot of debate about suspension and how to do that, and whether the suspension should be in school or out of school. There are restorative justice programs in some schools in some districts. Again, we're happy to look at the recommendation and discuss it with the Surrey school district, but there is a different approach across the province in terms of how to best deal with those students who for some reason need to have a suspension in one form or another.
B. Ralston: The focus here seems to be that the youth involved are engaged in healthy alternative activities that would engage them and support their reintegration back into the school system. That appears to be the point of view here. I'd be happy to direct the minister or her staff to the report, and I thank the minister for her responses to my questions.
Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the staff who are so quick at getting information. It's encouraging, and I would appreciate that information for our staff.
There is already a working group in place in Whalley north — I'm assuming that would be the member's constituency — where they are working on an integrated community approach as an alternative to suspension. I think that that group is taking the report quite seriously. Obviously, that's work that we would love to be made aware of.
Some work is underway, but we're happy to have a look at the information that the member reflected on today.
J. Brar: Yesterday I was here listening to the debate. There was a very interesting debate that took place around the role of the parent advisory committee. To summarize, the response of the minister — which I agree with — was that the key role of the PAC is to basically get involved in planning and to make sure people get the best education possible.
Having said that, I would like to ask a couple of questions to the minister on behalf of concerned parents and children of the newly built Cambridge Elementary School, located at 6115 150th Street in Surrey, which is part of my riding.
The cost of the school, as per the estimation given by the school board, is around $8.5 million. To build the playground in the same school, the cost — which the parent advisory committee came up with — is about $120,000, which is about 2 percent of the total cost of the school.
I met with the parent advisory committee a few weeks ago. The major concern everyone across the board had, which they brought to my attention, was the high cost of $120,000. They are now almost being forced to build a playground for children. During that discussion they brought a couple of very important issues to my attention.
The first one, as I said before, is that it is only 2 percent of the total cost, and it doesn't make any sense not to include building the playground for children. It is a very important, integral part of the physical and mental development of children to have playgrounds.
I would like to quote from the president of the PAC, Anthea Finlayson. This is what she wrote in her letter to the mayor: "Our concern lies with the fact that our school did not come equipped with one very necessary element to ensure healthy, active children — a playground." My question to the minister is: is there a set policy around funding playgrounds? And if the policy is no — to make it easy for the minister — to fund the playground, what is the rationale behind that policy?
Hon. S. Bond: I thank the member opposite for the concern. Certainly playgrounds are an important part of schools, and there is a challenge across the province at the moment. There's a different set of circumstances for new builds and playgrounds that exist, so there is certainly an emerging issue around existing playgrounds. I can speak to that at some point, if the member would like me to.
With new schools there is a playground provided, and there is a percentage. It is not 2 percent, so I can understand that if the playground cost is $120,000 that would not be within the envelope we would typically
[ Page 6874 ]
add to a new school ground. But there is an envelope of dollars that's assigned to a grant that goes with the capital build.
We have an $8.5 million new school. There would be dollars set aside for a playground. In all likelihood it would not be a $120,000 playground. Basically, there is a percentage of your total building cost. It is less than 2 percent; I think it's half of 1 percent. So half a percent would be the amount that is granted to a board for their building to include a playground.
There are a couple of other routes here, though. This might be an avenue, and I can assure you the school board will have a reaction to this, but school boards have the flexibility to add to playgrounds out of their annual facilities grants. They actually get dollars each year. One of the choices they could make is to help enhance that playground.
In general, there is an amount provided for a playground. It is not 2 percent, but there would be enough money for a basic playground unit.
J. Brar: Thanks to the minister. Actually, the response from the minister is half of the solution parents are looking for, but I'm surprised to hear that from the minister. The parents, when I met them about a month ago, made it very clear to me. Actually, I'm going to read this from the letter the president wrote, and correct me if that's wrong. They have applied for a grant to the school board. They are doing that. They are also applying for a grant to some other bodies — non-governmental bodies.
This is what they wrote in the letter to me: "Why is there no funding from the ministry at the provincial level?" So in my understanding and recollection after talking to the parents advisory committee, there was nothing as far as the provincial government is concerned. I would like the minister to clarify that as to what will be that amount and who will receive it? Will that be the parent advisory committee or somebody else?
Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I would be happy to have my staff contact the school district, because with every new school, half a percent of the build would be set aside for a playground. There should be at least a base amount for a core playground structure. It would not be $120,000, and I can be assured of that. We think for a school of $8.5 million it might be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 for a playground.
That's a pretty substantial playground. When you look at an average playground across the province, and we are facing the replacement of many playgrounds which are not…. A replacement of a playground is not funded by the provincial government, so we have many parent groups struggling right now to come up with $25,000 to replace playgrounds. So $120,000 would be a fairly significant playground.
I can assure the member that there is a grant that is attached to a school building to make sure that a playground is built. I would be happy to have our staff contact the school district to make sure that the parents are, first of all, getting that grant for the playground. Then there is the additional funding, which they would again have to pursue from other avenues.
J. Brar: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. I would also like to see if the staff can include…. I can pass the name of the PAC president on to staff to bring them up to speed so that they know what is going on. We will pass that information on to the minister's office.
My second question. If we look at one of the goals this government has set under the new Ministry for ActNow B.C., which is basically to encourage the people of British Columbia, particularly youngsters, to be very, very physically active, this policy is certainly not consistent with that goal.
I would like to ask the minister: I understand the half percent for that clarification, but does the minister…? Is this a good public policy — not to include the playgrounds, particularly for a new school?
Hon. S. Bond: I think we have good public policy because we do…. When we build a new school, we provide half a percent of the building cost of the building to build a playground. I totally agree with the member opposite that having a playground is an important way to get kids up and moving and active. I think that is very important.
We are currently trying to find other ways to assist parent groups who have to replace playgrounds because we know…. There was an issue that many of them were built with wood, and they've now all reached a point where they have to be removed because of safety standards. We are concerned about that as well. Parents have expressed that significantly to me across the province, and we're trying to find a way to assist them with the replacement of those playgrounds.
Our public policy is this: when you get a new school building, you get half a percent of that school building to build the playground initially, and then school districts have the ability to maintain those playgrounds using some of their annual facilities grant so that the maintenance continues as well. I think that is good public policy.
I do think we have a gap at the moment with those playgrounds that have to be removed. Obviously, this PAC is interested in a significant playground. I should say that playgrounds are expensive, so I'm not being critical of that cost. They are expensive.
We will follow up on this particular school and the playground. We are continuing to work to find a way to help support PACs that have to replace playgrounds, and we also encourage school districts to consider using a part of their annual facilities grant to help maintain those.
I should just say that the annual facilities grant for Surrey is $11 million. I will be the first to admit that they have lots of things to try to do with that annual facilities grant. Suggesting they can just use that for playgrounds, I'm sure, will bring a reaction, but there is that flexibility within that $11 million envelope to consider using some of those to maintain and enhance playgrounds.
[ Page 6875 ]
J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.
Here's why I asked whether this is a good public policy or not. I think we believe in free access to education. I think we are also in agreement that the playgrounds are a very, very important and integral part of the education system. Expecting the PAC to be building this totally new playground sometimes may compromise the principle of an accessible and free education system. It depends where the school is. Sometimes it's very hard, very difficult, for working families to raise that big an amount of money. That was my comment, basically. I would like to put that on the record.
The other question I want to ask, probably the last question…. In B.C. over 115 schools have been closed during the last about six years. My question is: when a school is closed, how is a decision made to transfer the equipment available in this school to the next place? Is there a set policy for that — to deal with that equipment? Or is it a kind of discretionary power of the school board to deal with it?
Hon. S. Bond: A couple of things. First of all, we agree that playgrounds and construction of them are a challenge. I very much am concerned for PACs across the province who are sorting through that. I can assure the member opposite that we are looking for creative ways to try to be supportive to parent advisory councils.
The issue here is that we've suddenly had a large number of replacements necessary at the same time because of safety, and that's an important consideration. So I would agree with the member opposite about that.
In terms of the assets within a building when it's closed, the local school board that is in the position of closing that building makes the decision about what to do with those assets. There are a number of options.
If they're appropriate and can be utilized in the receiving facility, then the school board might decide to transition the equipment to that school. They may look at whether it's surplus at that point. They would have the opportunity to put it up to public auction, or they may choose to store it, waiting to make sure that it's something they may need to use further down the road. Lots of options with those assets, but the decision is made locally and not by Victoria.
D. Cubberley: Time is getting tight, so we're going to have a bit of a smorgasbord of things from this point on just to try to wrap some things up.
Having listened to the conversation, I can't resist some thoughts going through my mind about this problem. It is one that I'm very well aware of because I was a municipal councillor for many years and dealt with it in terms of both municipal recreational apparatus in parks and in a relationship that we had with school districts where we eventually managed to achieve joint-use agreements with them.
Joint-use agreements are something that I'm a very, very strong proponent of because they lead to advantages on both sides of the equation — in particular, I think, in relation to the situation that you're facing around schools that are older and have this class of equipment which is now going to have to be tossed out and replaced.
It is going to be a challenge to do that, and there may be some opportunities, in places where boards develop relationships with municipalities, to share that. It's obviously the case that this class of equipment serves the community both during school hours and out of school hours — all weekend long.
It's a struggle at the municipal level to deal with this as well. I know because it took me six or seven years to get our municipality to double the number of new playgrounds or replacement playgrounds that we did a year. That was to go from one to two, and that's a municipality with 120,000 people in it. It's a significant problem.
I think that joint-use agreements can bring those benefits and can trigger additional resources being injected into those sites. Of course, those are premium playgrounds because they're in areas where there is a population base immediately around it, where playgrounds and parks can be more far-flung. Therefore, they should enjoy some priority.
It doesn't always happen that school districts and trustees talk to municipal councils and develop that kind of relationship. There may be a role there, in some advocacy or in however suggestions are made in discreet ways to districts, to embark on developing those partnerships with municipalities.
They can become very layered. It took us a very long time to get a relationship with one of our school districts on Saanich council, but we managed to entice them ultimately, because as a council, we invested $400,000 in a theatre at one school, which would be a regional theatre in part of our community, in return for community access to that space. We had to hold that out as a carrot for a very long period of time to the other school district to try to talk them into a joint use agreement.
There can be some resistance, because everybody's busy, and if the pattern of talking isn't there, it can be hard to get it going. Anyway, I just throw that out as a suggestion.
To delve into the smorgasbord, I wanted to ask a question about BCeSIS and if the minister could give me a sense of what, in the ministry's view, the purpose of BCeSIS is and how well that system is performing. And can the minister supply an annual cost for the collection and collating of data for BCeSIS?
Hon. S. Bond: I will just try to answer those questions. I know that he has a number of others, so I will try to get this as quickly as possible.
BCeSIS is the B.C. enterprise student information system, just so that people who may read this would know what that is about. What it does is help school districts track and report student information.
One of the key factors is that it is voluntary. School districts do not have to belong to BCeSIS, but all 60 school districts have agreed to and in fact want to switch from their old tracking systems to this new system. We also have, I should mention, 120 independ-
[ Page 6876 ]
ent schools that are a part of this process. It contains the information from about 700 schools in British Columbia.
The fee, to answer the member's question…. School districts pay $10 a student to use BCeSIS. If you look at that across the system, the direct and indirect operational costs to the old systems have been estimated at anywhere from $50 to $140 per student. We've actually seen significant cost savings for school districts, and that's why they're choosing to use the system.
We have been recognized for this work across the country, actually. From our perspective, it's very much a good-news story. There have been some challenges in operation, and I think there have been some periods of time where there have been complications for school districts. But generally speaking, it's an excellent data collection and tracking system. Districts are choosing to move away from old systems, and they're doing that because it's more efficient, but also, there is a cost savings for school districts.
D. Cubberley: Are there other ministries involved in BCeSIS, and which ministries would they be? If you could give me an idea.
Hon. S. Bond: I'm informed that no, there are no other ministries involved. This is strictly a student information system that has been developed through our ministry.
D. Cubberley: Chair, I want to ask the minister some questions about FSA and costs. But just in the interests of saving time, I'd like to submit in writing to the minister some questions that come from various stakeholders so that we don't try to roll through all of those verbally, because I think it would eat all the rest of our time.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about the costs of administering the FSA across the province and get an idea of what the costs to the system are — both ministry costs and costs to school districts to administer and interpret FSA results.
Hon. S. Bond: We're just assembling that. It takes a bit of time for us to sort through that. If the member opposite could move on to the next question. The minute I get it, I will be happy to share it.
D. Cubberley: That's very efficient, and I appreciate that.
Hon. S. Bond: Sorry. That's our fault.
D. Cubberley: No, that's great. It's great.
I know the minister would be aware of…. How could one not be aware of the ranking of schools that's done by the Fraser Institute based on foundation skills assessments, on data that…. At one level they're data that are taken from the province; at another level they're put through some kind of a black box that translates into a ranking of schools. I would be surprised if she didn't share some concern about that.
We were talking about the implicit and explicit competition between public schools, public education, and private schools and about how important it is, in a context where we have declining enrolment in public schools based on demographics and, at the same time, private schools attracting students in — so population growth — that schools in the public system be able to hold their share of population — to be able to compete, for lack of a better term.
One of the things that I think is a challenge — and I'd like to hear the minister's comment on this — is that when there is a ranking of schools done in the manner that the Fraser Institute does it, it pinpoints particular schools and creates a very strong impression in the public mind about those schools. I personally find it lamentable that that's occurring. It has to be, I believe, of concern to us, because it creates an impression which will affect choice at some level on the part of citizens who have that choice.
I'd like to know the minister's opinion of that, and I'd like to know what we're doing to counter that impression that's created, because these results are given very wide publicity. That's my question.
Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite does capture some of the concerns that people, including us, have when results from one year's data are used to rank schools. First of all, we don't control or influence the Fraser Institute. That is something that they have taken on.
I think the member opposite has captured some of the concerns. The issue we face is that there is a growing interest and demand from parents for information about how their children are doing. So one of the challenges we face is when the rankings come out, it's a very well-purchased newspaper. What do we do about that?
I mean, at the end of the day, the purpose of the foundation skills assessment is not to be a tool for the Fraser Institute. It's actually to be a tool to help children improve individually, and we support the use of FSAs. We encourage and insist that school districts use that data as part of a set of assessment tools that actually will help us see those 11,000 students that the member and I have talked about for days now and also those 9,000 that show up not ready for school yet. We need to make sure we have strategies in place. We believe FSA is an important part of that assessment package. What do we do about that?
One of the things we also believe is that we do need to embark upon some significant strategies to improve the situation for all of our students in this province. There are 11,000 of them that are not having their needs met, and we need to sort through that. So we do believe there needs to be some improvement.
I guess part of what we do is that when we talk about public education, we need to remind people that FSA, when used in the Fraser Institute rankings, is not the only measure that should be used. In fact, the Fraser Institute rankings don't include programs like trades programs. It is a measure that is not inclusive
[ Page 6877 ]
of a lot of important factors. So I think we have to be very public about the fact that we support the use of foundation skills assessment in appropriate ways by individuals and their families and schools as a strategic tool.
I think we also have to speak more positively about public education. Last year was a perfect example. One of the schools ranked lowest on the Fraser Institute ranking had a very special program created and aired about that school. Some very amazing things were happening in that school that would not be captured by FSA.
It's an important measure, but there are other things that happen in those schools, and I've been in those schools. So I think we need to be responsible with the use of FSA. We can't influence the Fraser Institute, but I do think we need to find other measures that we can share publicly that help maintain the confidence that there should be in our public education system.
D. Cubberley: Just a quick question on the StrongStart program — something that I don't think was asked. I wanted to get an idea. If a StrongStart program is approved for a school, how many spaces…? It probably can't be translated into spaces, but what is the capacity of that program? When a school gets one, how many families would be enabled to use it within its capacity?
Hon. S. Bond: Okay, let me just clear off some — in order to maintain efficiency here…. Foundation skills assessment. When we look at the sort of administrative costs in all of the questions that the member opposite answered, I've been given the number of $1.4 million when you look at what the costs are associated with that.
I did also want to point out, just to be clear, that the Fraser Institute actually uses the Freedom of Information Act to get the data that they use in their rankings. It's not something that we would automatically hand over to the Fraser Institute.
In terms of our StrongStart centres, it very much depends. I can't say to the member opposite how many families it would serve, because it is a drop-in program. Some programs are three mornings a week; some are five days a week. There are a variety of numbers, but obviously classrooms would be monitored for the physical capacity of how many can be there at one time. In fact, I've been in a StrongStart centre where there's a list, and people sign up for a certain time period. If the maximum number is reached, then the rest of the people have to come on another day. So I can't say that 30 families are served, because it is a drop-in program.
D. Cubberley: I wanted to ask a combined question. One is about the global advertising budget for the ministry — what the allocation will be in the current year for advertising. Within that, I'm wondering if there is any allocation for survey research or for focus group research that would be used to gain a clearer understanding of why it is that one in five students chooses to drop out of school.
The reason that I ask that is because, in thinking about it, almost certainly there are patterns of choice operating that would vary with different subpopulations. It strikes me that it might be very informative to actually ask the people who are dropping out or who have dropped out of school why it was they left, when the impression first came to them that school was not for them, and what caused it. I wonder if that is being done or whether that's something that's being contemplated.
[R. Cantelon in the chair.]
Hon. S. Bond: We do have a budget line item of $750,000, and that's for information and publication. So I would assume that within that umbrella, we could contemplate surveys and feedback loops in that way. That is a budget line item called "Information and publication."
I think that we should also point out that we, of course, do engage in satisfaction surveys with parents and students. The member would be aware of those. We touched on this on one of the days previously. I think that having conversations with people about why they left the system or about what changes could be made is really important.
It was one of the questions at our student dialogue in terms of how we improve the public education system. Obviously, these were students in it currently. That does merit some discussion about how you influence the shape of public education. You probably should talk to some people who haven't had a satisfactory experience in terms of that. That's a good observation. We do have that budget line.
The other question that the member opposite asked was about advertising. We do have a budget allocation which actually comes from PAB, Public Affairs, and the budget line item for us is $2 million. That would be to engage in things like, perhaps, crystal meth awareness, which was one of our responsibilities last year. It may be around literacy. So it would very much be about educational programming or about benefit to families and students — if you call that advertising. I see that it's much more about public awareness, but it is a $2-million budget line.
D. Cubberley: I appreciate the response from the minister on that. I just think personally, in all the reading that I've done about it…. Incidentally, I was somebody who one year in high school dropped out. I returned to high school, and I completed, so I have some sympathy for how that may happen. But at the same time, reading about the phenomenon — and not just in British Columbia, because it's a phenomenon everywhere — it's talked about as though they're out there.
They're talked about as a statistic, not because anybody sets out to do that, but we have coarse measures of the fact that they're there. They're non-completes, they dropped out, and it's one in five. We know it's a problem, but I don't get the sense that we have a clear picture of who they are and what that looks like from
[ Page 6878 ]
the inside for them. That's why I asked the question and make that suggestion.
I wanted to pass on to something else quickly. We talked very briefly about distributed learning, and I'm aware of the direction and of some of the advantages of it. I'm also aware that one of the ideas behind it is that it can, in a sense, supplement rural and remote school districts. Where you have smaller populations and there is a struggle to provide program richness, these distributed learning courses could assist in fleshing out a broader program or in creating more options for students.
My question is — we got close to this, but I don't recall our nailing it: does it have the potential to drain FTE money in some fashion away from rural and remote districts to have individual students choosing to participate in distributed learning courses? Part of the question is: is there a fee that travels with the use of the course to the agency creating it? Does it create a means for metropolitan school districts that are engaged in developing this kind of programming to bring resources in but to actually pull them away from rural and remote school districts?
Hon. S. Bond: I don't think so, and I certainly hope not. The intent of the provision of this service is to do a couple of things. I think the member absolutely described it perfectly. This is about enhancing and supplementing, and I actually appreciated the language about making a richer opportunity for students.
I think that's important, but I think one of the key things we have to remember, in our view, from distributed learning is that usually and in most cases there's still a person attached to that program: a qualified British Columbia teacher in many cases. We look at a combination of face-to-face and distributed learning. Not only are our classrooms like that, I think schools are becoming more and more that way as well.
This is not about replacing FTEs. It is absolutely about expanding choice for students, and it doesn't matter their geography. I can give the member opposite a really good example of an urban situation where students are using that sort of hybrid model: high-performance athletes, for example. I use this example at risk because, heaven knows, my very own Prince George Cougars are now taking on the Vancouver Giants in their quest for success in hockey, but I have met with the Vancouver Giants, for example, with a number of students who use distributed learning as part of their program.
I don't think it's merely about rural or remote. I think it's about students whose lives need some variation and flexibility. A key principle for us is that this is to enhance, not to replace. Most recently, when I was in a school and met a student — it was in Ashcroft — he was taking a senior science class. The great news was that he was taking it by distributed learning, but the best part was that there was a great teacher attached to that program who happened to be in Lumby.
D. Cubberley: I just want to come back very briefly to BCeSIS. The minister said there were no other ministries involved in BCeSIS. I wanted to ask if the program is delivered via a private contractor, what it costs us to use the private contractor if it is, and whether that contractor and that information are resident in the province or are maintained outside of B.C. or in another country?
Hon. S. Bond: The cost that I gave the member was the all-in cost. Schools will pay $10 per student per year to use BCeSIS. That's the all-in cost for schools. The contract has been awarded to a company, and that is a Canadian company. It is Fujitsu Consulting (Canada). They host BCeSIS for us.
I should point out, though, that a key and important factor for us is that the data is maintained in British Columbia. It doesn't go anywhere. It stays here in British Columbia — a Canadian company. Just one sort of little note of pride: BCeSIS actually got the bronze medal at the 2006 GTEC Awards for innovation in collaboration in government, so it's been widely recognized as successful.
D. Cubberley: Just to clarify one thing on that $10 a student for the school district. Then there are additional costs. If I recall correctly, it was a lesser number that would generate if each student in the system, the entire student body, were involved. So I'm assuming it's a lesser number than the whole student population that is involved in BCeSIS.
Hon. S. Bond: I'm just going to ask the member to move on to the next question if he has one. I'll do the math on that and answer the question momentarily.
D. Cubberley: This may be one you don't have at the tips of your fingers either, although you may have. I'm wondering. I have a company which is identified under a summary from the Ministry of Finance as "school district 58 ventures limited." I'm interested in knowing if that is a school district business and anything you may know about that company.
Hon. S. Bond: We're not sure what that is in terms of school district 58 ventures. We will look into that. There are, however, a number of school districts who do have district business companies. We're not certain if that would be one, but we'll get that information. If we don't get it today, we'll certainly get that to the member opposite.
D. Cubberley: Just to make sure I didn't misspeak myself, Chair, it's SD-58, so I don't know if it's "school district" or not.
I wanted to pass on. There was some canvassing of the topic of seismic upgrades yesterday with one of the members on this side, and I wanted to spend a little bit more time on it. The program was announced as a three-year program originally to fast-track 80 schools with a set budgetary allocation. I think it was roughly $254 million, if memory serves. Then it was extended to 95 schools. It was stated that it would be, at the time it was announced.
[ Page 6879 ]
The minister gave a number yesterday which again escapes me, but a very small portion of those schools completed two years into the program. She also talked about some factors that were slowing down completion of the project. What I want to ask off the top is whether there's a commitment to complete the schools as announced in the time frame that was originally announced or if a new time frame is now under consideration.
Hon. S. Bond: Okay, let's just take care of BCeSIS while we're here. The member opposite is correct, and I should have been more thorough in the first explanation.
The cost to school districts is $10 per student, and obviously, if you do the math there — and we don't have everyone signed up — the total cost of BCeSIS in 2006-2007 was $12.66 million. The recovery amount from school districts was $2.245 million. We think that was the recovery amount. The balance of that would be paid by the ministry.
As the enrolments and the participation go up in school boards, eventually it will end up being a 50-50 contract, we assume, where the ministry would pay 50 percent and the school board contributions would end up totalling 50 percent as well. Those are the numbers for '06-07.
Back to seismic. Our commitment is to meet the targets we've set. That does mean we have some extra work to do here. First of all, we have to speed up the feasibility study process. Right now we have over 40 of those projects where the feasibility studies aren't finished yet. One of the things we are contemplating and will be making public very soon is an expedited process to assist school boards to get through the feasibility studies. So there are over 40 at the moment that aren't through their feasibility studies.
Our intent is to meet the commitment. We have to expedite the process, and we have to look at some new processes in terms of how we would approach these projects. There are a number of proposals we're looking at, including how we could have certain districts work together to bring some efficiencies to this. Our commitment remains that in the three-year window we have, they would be either…. They won't be completed, because that wasn't what the commitment said — that we would have them in the process — but we hope to have all of them in the construction stage in 2008.
D. Cubberley: The initial commitment of $254 million. That was based on estimates that were done in a prior year, it's my understanding — in 2004, I believe. The program was announced in 2005. At that point in time, if memory serves, we had had at least three years of rising construction costs, and they were escalating each year. That ripple effect of rising construction costs has been playing out across all construction projects, whether they're public or private, in the province.
We heard quite a bit about it today. In fact, the minister responsible for the convention centre was telling us how much the cost of steel had gone up and the cost of various components going into construction.
One of the things we have seen is an escalation in the dedicated funding for projects that are underway currently. In looking at this commitment, and what I'm aware of by way of capital commitments, it is stuck at the original budgeted level.
Clearly, if you apply rising construction costs to that number, that number is not going to do the number of schools that it was predicted to do. I would ask whether additional resources are going to be put in play, and if they're not, the question is why they're not.
Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I think that the most important thing to point out is that we have a $1.5 billion envelope for this, and we're going to continue to move these projects forward. This week we were able to open a project that was built on time and on budget.
It takes really great management of projects; it takes looking at scope; it takes looking at all of those things. First of all, we're going to manage all of these projects through the system. I should be and I want to be very clear about this.
In terms of the commitment we made, we have to remember that we made a commitment to 80 projects, to fast-track them, and we looked at whether or not we could make that 95. A number of those schools are no longer going to be necessary to do, because they were on the fast-track list. Some of those schools have closed.
I am very confident that our 80 schools that we committed to will be under construction in some form or another. They're not going to be done. We've said that very clearly, and we knew that. It's a much longer process than even three years could cover with that number of projects. Our commitment is to move forward on that commitment.
There will not necessarily be 95, because a number of them will close. We think it could be as high as six to eight of those. Certainly the target number of 80…. We are looking at the schedule and how to move those forward. But there are some key things we have to do between now and then to make that happen.
One is, as I've mentioned, to speed up the feasibility study process. We are frustrated too. There are over 40 that have not been completed yet. That is a board responsibility. We need to provide some help there, to make sure that those things are moving along more quickly. We're going to stretch our budget just as far as we can, but these projects will go forward. We build contingencies into every single contract.
We're going to move them forward. We are going to work to the commitment of the 80 schools. We will look at the 95 number — how many will or will not go forward. Some of them will close. Most importantly, my short-term priority is to look at a new process to deal with feasibility studies and other ways of grouping these projects together.
D. Cubberley: I just want to check, Chair, that I heard correctly. What I'm hearing is that there would be, in up to 80 schools, spades in the ground within the three-year window.
[ Page 6880 ]
Hon. S. Bond: Our commitment is to have them in the construction stage. It could be in the tender process, but it would certainly be in the construction stage. That means that there's a commitment, there's a project agreement and that feasibility studies are underway. As I said to the member opposite yesterday, we're going to move 15 more to construction before the summer. I have approved two this week. Again, the biggest concern I have is the process, and I think it needs to be sped up.
Our commitment remains aggressive. We have a commitment, particularly to the 80 projects, and again, I need some flexibility in the 95. I do think we have to make some changes to the process, and I hope to be able to share that information in the next number of days. We've done some work in terms of how we can speed up the process in general.
D. Cubberley: I'd like to ask a little clarification on how the process actually works. I have sensed some confusion — certainly on the part of parents, who don't understand what's going on at all, and to some extent on the part of school boards — about what the process is. I think part of the challenge is the way that this was presented. There was a lot of focus placed on the fact that the province developed a new assessment tool and that schools were systematically assessed and that the engineering association was involved in this. It was a world-class tool, and this was going to lead to or set the stage for the fast-tracking of these projects.
Then a new thing has intervened, which is feasibility studies, and I would like to have some comment on how that's supposed to work. Then in addition to the feasibility studies there are some that appear to have gone through that process and were lined up for approval, but now there is a due-diligence review on them.
I would like the minister to open that up a little bit for me, so we all have a better understanding of why that's happening and what each step in the process is.
Hon. S. Bond: In the attempt to keep moving and keep this efficient, we designed the assessment tool with the associated engineers and had the initial look at what buildings…. They provided an initial cost estimate.
Feasibility studies are not new. That has always been the process. Maybe part of this is a communication issue. It's also an issue of concern for parents. I understand that uncertainty. But the feasibility part is not true. Sorry, it's not new. It is true; it's not new. That's a very important differentiation.
That means there is time attached to a feasibility study. That's why, when we made the initial commitment of a three-year period, that doesn't mean that it's built, on the ground and open in that three-year period. It's not possible in terms of the capital process that we have in place.
Feasibility studies are not new. That is where school districts try to lock down the size, the scope and the cost estimate. There is in some cases — not every case…. We are looking at a due-diligence process in some cases, and that's where the variation in cost between the initial engineer's cost and the feasibility study cost is really wide.
We need to look at…. Obviously, cost escalation of materials is one piece, but are there scope issues where boards say — as you can imagine, when there's a chance to build something: "Let's fix everything else at the same time and do a number of other things." We are looking at due diligence. We need that to be done quickly, as well, if there's a big cost variation between the initial estimate and what a feasibility study would tell us.
Looking at the package we have to deliver, the challenge we face is, as I've said previously, that we've got to get the feasibility studies done more quickly and make sure we're looking at that in an appropriate way. We're going to try to find a way to help with that.
We also need to look at whether there are some efficiencies we can find with building and design and how we can do that. These are two things that I think will help the process. Feasibility is not a new process. It does take time, and it is a board responsibility.
D. Cubberley: No, I did understand that the feasibility wasn't…. There's a challenge in understanding — post-announcement that we're going to fast-track these schools — who's responsible for bringing forward feasibility studies. Is that strictly: "Okay, school districts, we've told you. Here are the 80 schools. You do it on whatever time lines you want to"? Or are we going through a more expedited process than that, where we sit down with school districts and say: "Look. These are the expectations. We'd like to work with you to meet those"?
There would be an opportunity with a process like that to front-end the due diligence and to say, "Let's put our heads together and decide what the scope of this project is," so that it doesn't appear to be as chaotic as it is now. It might be a more orderly process.
I'll give the minister a chance to comment on that.
Hon. S. Bond: I know that it may feel chaotic to parents. It isn't. There is a process in place. But the member opposite has…. As I've said, I will make public very shortly some of the tools we will use to take care of the very concerns that the member opposite has expressed.
Who brings forward a feasibility study? Today it is school boards. It is basically that: "You are awarded this. Now, you go and hire the architects and look after design, and you come back to us with estimates." It's very much a board responsibility.
That's difficult for some boards. We are recognizing that with the fact that we have over 40 that haven't even been finished yet. The tools we are looking at are…. Can we bring resources to the table to assist boards in moving those things forward more quickly? Secondly, can we look at new ways of procuring and of working together?
[ Page 6881 ]
We absolutely think that if we take care of a couple of those pieces, we will be able to avoid the due diligence in some of the projects that are not yet through the feasibility study. Having said that, we have some that have come through feasibility studies where there is now a pretty glaring gap. So we still have some significant projects where we will have to look at due diligence.
I am confident that some of the changes we're contemplating here…. We'll make those public very shortly, and I look forward to the member opposite's comments about those at that time. But they very much capture the concerns, I think, that have been expressed by the member today.
D. Cubberley: A couple of things. The suggestion has been made by some of the advocates that it would be desirable, both from the parents' point of view and for establishing a transparent process publicly, to have a strategic plan of some kind beyond the commitment to the 80 schools.
There's also a question, and I would pose this to the minister as to whether this is…. Is this the primary responsibility of a person within the ministry — not solely, but of at least one person — to oversee the movement of this process along? Or is this something that people are doing off the sides of their busy desks? I'll give her a chance to comment on that.
Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I have said numerous times, I have an amazing staff. They do a terrific job, and they do many things off the sides of their incredibly busy desks. We do have staff that are looking at this and the capital projects together. One of the things we also have to look at is: is there some synergy that we can find there which also will help us with the cost efficiencies?
Let me just reassure the member opposite that this is a priority for us. We understand the importance. We understand, also, some of the concerns about the process. So I hope in the days ahead that we will provide some more clarity.
There is a plan in place. We have a significant commitment from this government of $1.5 billion to move these projects forward. We will continue to do that, and I will make some changes very shortly to the process that I think will certainly help bring a bit more speed and will look at the process over the next probably year and a half.
If I could, for the member opposite, I want to quickly knock off a couple of items of homework so that we don't have to do a lot of paper exchange later. I'm not sure what the SD-58 means, but school district 58 does not have a company, so we'll explore. If the member opposite has anything else about what that might be linked to, that would be helpful, but that particular school district doesn't have a company.
Yesterday I was asked about special education student enrolment numbers in school district 39, which is Vancouver. I'll just read those into the record. In 2002 there were 6,754. In 2003 there were 6,409; in 2004, 6,501; and in 2005, 6,132. In 2006 that dropped to 6,051. So we've seen a drop of approximately 700 students with special needs — a drop of 703, actually, since 2002.
D. Cubberley: I have one last question to ask and then just a quick closing comment.
I'm interested in the Learning Roundtable and representation on it. I just wanted to ask whether there are special needs advocates included on the Learning Roundtable and whether there are any members or a member from CUPE who have been invited to sit on the Learning Roundtable.
Hon. S. Bond: The membership of the provincial roundtable does not currently include the two groups that the member opposite referred to. By consensus, and this was discussed at our last meeting on our agenda items, we committed to review that within a year of the creation of the roundtable. By consensus — and there were members who wanted to see an expanded membership, but generally speaking and ultimately by the vast majority of partners — that membership will remain the same.
However, the Learning Roundtable very much wants to invite those particular groups to present and participate with the roundtable at specific meetings. We would like to hear from a number of groups including specialist teachers. There was a long list of people who wanted to be involved in the Learning Roundtable. It would have been incredibly difficult to be inclusive at every meeting, but we are going to look at a series of meetings which would have those groups present directly to the Learning Roundtable.
D. Cubberley: Chair, that would appear to bring us to the end of our time together in estimates. I want to thank both the minister and her staff for the forthrightness of responses to the questions I have asked. I hope that the process was informative. I personally found it informative.
There are a ton of things that I would like to have the time to talk about because education is an incredibly broad topic, and it really does matter in the lives of all British Columbians. When you work your way through these matters, whatever angle you're coming from, you can't help but grow awareness of how important it is that we exercise good stewardship of the system.
I hope in the course of the dialogue that we've had that we may have made some small contribution towards exercising stewardship over this system. I thank all of the members opposite and the minister and staff.
Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,494,380,000 — approved.
The Chair: We'll now have a ten-minute recess to allow the officials from the Ministry of Advanced Education to take their places and resume estimate questions.
[ Page 6882 ]
The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.
[J. Nuraney in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,151,076,000.
Hon. M. Coell: It is a pleasure that I rise today to present the 2007-2008 spending estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me today: Tom Vincent, my assistant deputy minister for students and learning division; Neil Matheson, assistant deputy minister of management services division; Joe Thompson, executive director of funding and analysis branch; and Debbie Hall, director of universities and institutes branch.
I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all the staff in the Ministry of Advanced Education and also of our partners in the post-secondary field.
Please let me begin by highlighting a number of major commitments which demonstrate the ministry's success on behalf of students, parents and taxpayers. We continue to limit tuition to the rate of inflation. We've expanded the system through our strategic investment plan; strengthened B.C.'s network of colleges, institutes and on-line learning; expanded training in post-secondary programs for health care and social workers; and doubled the annual number of graduates in computer science, electrical and computer engineering.
Knowledge is key to unlocking our citizens' true potential in the digital world. The government is determined to open Canada's Pacific gateway to new worlds of knowledge and economic opportunity. That's the reason we have embarked on the largest post-secondary apprenticeship expansion in 40 years. We are training more workers to meet the critical skills shortages to fill jobs in our growing economy, and we are increasing the number of medical school graduates. We promise to create 25,000 student spaces by 2010, and we're right on track, having funded already almost 12,000 of them. We also are funding an additional 2,500 new graduate spaces over the next four years, and we've committed $82 million in new funding to these additional student spaces.
Over $1 billion has been invested in capital improvements in the post-secondary system since 2001. Another $800 million has been allocated to further expand universities, colleges and institutes. Budget 2007 continues to build on government's ongoing commitment to increase access to post-secondary education. Over the next three years new funding of $343 million will be added to the system — this in addition to $306 million allocated in previous budgets, for a total funding increase of $649 million over the next three years.
To ensure that we make the most of our investments, we have launched Campus 2020, which will help us shape the vision of B.C.'s post-secondary system in the Pacific century ahead. We've put hundreds of millions of dollars into research and technology to help build a world-class research community in our province.
We are making new research investments in everything from spinal cord research to wireless technology: more than $12 million to fund the spinal cord research at the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation; also, $3 million in new funding to the B.C. Innovation Council to support new programs that will enhance research and commercialization; financial support for the Wireless Innovation Network Society of B.C. through a formal partnership with Bell Canada, which will establish a world-class wireless technology centre in Vancouver to enhance the economic benefits of the 2010 games.
Our goal is to keep our resource sector competitive and sustainable. These new investments will complement other research commitments like the Leading Edge Endowment Fund and the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund. LEEF is helping our post-secondary institutions attract and retain world-class researchers. Twenty British Columbia leadership chairs and nine regional innovation chairs support research and health care, environment stewardship, technology and important aboriginal issues such as early childhood development.
Our B.C. Knowledge Development Fund is available to public post-secondary institutions, teaching hospitals and affiliated non-profit agencies when they need research equipment or facilities. The fund provided $16.5 million this year to the Biodiversity Research Centre, a centre that will provide basic research related to life sciences and developments in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
Also, $2.5 million went to support the University of Northern British Columbia's valued tree lab, whose research is finding new uses for the trees destroyed by the mountain pine beetle, and further economic potential for the forest industry as well. And $30 million has been provided to help develop Neptune, the world's largest cable-link undersea laboratory off North America's west coast, starting right here in greater Victoria.
Since we assumed office, grants from the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund, plus other funding leveraged through the grants, have added to a total of $750 million. British Columbia has a reputation for leading-edge research. We plan to improve our position, keep our resource sector competitive and sustainable, strengthen our high-tech sector, grow new sectors, fuel, and also to create jobs.
Our government is also moving to capitalize on our province's emerging strengths, such as digital media. B.C. has the largest digital media cluster in Canada, with over 800 companies and 50,000 employees. Our province is the third-largest film and TV centre in North America, and Vancouver is the largest game development centre in the world. That's why we invested more than $40 million in creating a leading-edge
[ Page 6883 ]
digital media centre at the Great Northern Way campus in Vancouver.
Students and new workers must be given the skills they need to prosper in the Pacific century. When we took office in 2001, UBC school of medicine was very well-regarded, but it was also very small, considering our population. It offered 120 first-year training spaces for student doctors — unchanged in the previous 20 years. In the same 20 years, however, B.C.'s population had increased by 50 percent. Not only that, but the average age was rising and still is, in fact, and as the population ages, the demand for health care grows exponentially.
We looked at the numbers, and we took action. We committed to nearly doubling the number of student spaces for doctors at UBC's medical school, and we provide part of their education at the University of Victoria on Vancouver Island and the University of Northern B.C. in Prince George. By 2009 the graduating class will have nearly doubled the number of doctors educated in British Columbia since 2001.
We've also created B.C.'s first programs to educate midwives and nurse practitioners, who are now playing important roles in our health care system, and we are training hundreds of more nurses every year. To date our government has increased the number of nursing seats by more than 75 percent. That's an increase of more than 3,000 nursing spaces since 2001. That's one example of how our seat expansion is unfolding.
It's also targeted towards filling the skilled shortages anticipated as baby-boomers leave the workforce. Our plan was built on a balanced approach to train more people with the skill sets that we need to keep our province firing on all cylinders. To keep trained, skilled workers supporting our province's growing mining industry, the Ministry of Advanced Education is contributing $2 million over the next two years to the reclamation and prospecting program at Northwest Community College in Terrace.
But the demand for skilled workers in energy, construction and related trades of forestry, mining, agriculture, engineering and technology goes well beyond B.C.'s borders. We will look to other provinces and the federal government on a national action plan for skills development. At home our Industry Training Authority is expanding its programs to trades training and apprenticeships by adding 7,000 new training spaces by 2010.
We continue to increase the number and type of scholarships and internships available to British Columbia post-secondary students. For students who are taking advantage of the transfer system to finish their degrees, we have the $15 million Irving K. Barber B.C. Scholarship Program. We also have the Premier's Excellence Awards which go to the top high school graduates of each of 15 college regions.
A brand-new $20 million scholarship fund will provide scholarships and internships to support the new and existing graduate spaces. So $10 million will create a four-year scholarship program for graduate students from the province's four research-intensive universities: the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria and the University of Northern British Columbia. There is $10 million for internship programs for B.C. graduate students administered by Mytags based at Simon Fraser University.
Meanwhile, we're continuing to create, to keep high education affordable for students because affordability is a large piece of accessibility. This year tuition at all B.C.'s universities increased by 1.9 percent — lower by far than the Canadian average increase of 3.2 percent. B.C.'s graduate fees increased even less, by less than 1.3 percent — less than the national average, which was 5.6 percent.
The majority of students graduating from post-secondary programs in B.C. report finishing without debt. For those who do need to borrow, we have a comprehensive, flexible student assistance program now called StudentAid B.C., so that every student can choose to invest in their education.
We also have a loan reduction program to help students most in need keep their debts down. In the first year nearly 28,000 students benefited from this program and had more than $67 million in student loans forgiven.
We want all British Columbians to be able to participate in the growth and the prosperity of our province. We are encouraging people who haven't traditionally made up much of the skilled workforce to consider going boldly where few have gone before, and that includes aboriginal students.
We are encouraged that more aboriginal students are going on to higher education. In fact, the number of aboriginal students involved in post-secondary education is up by 13 percent since 2002. We want this participation to increase, so we will provide more than $15 million over the next two years to plan and implement aboriginal post-secondary enhancement plans for all our institutions in collaboration with aboriginal communities to develop culturally enhanced programs and services.
In closing, I would like to reinforce this government's commitment to continue to enhance North America's best transfer system. Closely related to quality assurance is transferability, and in that regard B.C. is fortunate. Our transfer system is recognized as one of the most comprehensive and effective in North America. This year we intend to prove our transfer system even more as we work together to train more students than ever before.
We are making a record investment in new facilities on our campus. We are limiting tuition fees to the rate of inflation. We are doing our part to improve the health care system, training more nurses and doctors, and we're making important investments in research and technology. We're bringing out the best in our people through the hard work and dedication of the entire post-secondary sector.
I want to thank the parents, the faculty and the staff who keep making our students' dreams come true. Through cooperation, students of this province are realizing true value in the investment in our post-secondary system.
[ Page 6884 ]
R. Fleming: I thank the minister for his opening comments this afternoon. It's a privilege and a pleasure for me as the member for Victoria-Hillside to participate in my first set of estimates, as a matter of fact. I will apologize in advance to the minister and to his staff that there may be some elementary errors on my part in terms of how this process works, but I will do my best to ask the questions that I think are of interest and that will round out the service plan in the budget document that has been provided by government.
It will reflect, of course, some of the questions that constituents and British Columbians have from around the province who have an interface with the various public and private institutions that are part of our post-secondary system.
I think that the minister's opening remarks are very well-regarded in terms of how important this system is to the well-being of British Columbia and what the critical importance of post-secondary education is to all British Columbians.
The education, the knowledge and the skill levels of our population are completely dependent on the success of our post-secondary education system, and they play a pivotal role in determining how our industries can thrive, prosper and grow in British Columbia and how we create new jobs to fill opportunities that are there in our economy and maybe even to create opportunities we may not have even thought existed.
The great thing about our university and college sector is that it expands the creativity of our population. In creating opportunities for individuals, we create opportunities for many more people in our society. I think that advanced education…. There was a senator from Florida who, I think, said it well recently that a new dollar invested in advanced education is never a wasted dollar. I think that when you look at what other governments are doing across Canada and what we on this side of the House would hope that our government would do more of, it is to invest in advanced education, because it is so critical, as I have just said, to the well-being of the province now and into the future.
I'll probably use the terms "advanced education" and "post-secondary education" interchangeably, as the minister will as well. I don't think that's a concern.
I think the other part that I want to pick up on in the minister's overview is that advanced education really is a part of what legislators and the public want available to make our society a better place and, quite frankly, a more fair and just place.
Often I think our university and college and university-college administrators think that their mandate is to impart particular degrees and programs and non-degree programs and to comply with the ministry's guidance in shaping that planning. But collectively and as a whole, of course, there is something much bigger going on here. We quite rightly have a high expectation for our post-secondary education system to deliver on something much bigger, which is a fair and more just society.
When you look around the world, those countries, those jurisdictions, that do have strong post-secondary education systems are countries that are more prosperous, successful and fair, and that have better health for their citizens and lower incarceration rates. It goes on and on. Every social indicator is improved by having a strong, healthy post-secondary education sector.
I do note, when one places this particular set of estimates around advanced education into the larger context of the budget, that British Columbians have made their opinion very clear on many occasions. They value investment in accessible funding and accessible opportunities for post-secondary education far more than they do tax cuts.
When one looks at this budget's investment — if you want to call it that — or expenditure in tax cuts, compared to what we might achieve in investing in incentives and grants and opportunities for our young people to obtain skills and education and do better in life and then repay more taxes and build a stronger society, I think that in that context we have missed the mark in this budget. As I've said, the single greatest lever for this government — for all governments in countries like this one — to advance the opportunities of its citizens is post-secondary education.
In fairness to the minister, I think that he has consistently spoken out about these issues. I know that he shares a part of that vision. I know that he is an advocate for advanced education and the opportunities that it provides British Columbians and especially young people, and I commend the minister for his comments here today and on other occasions.
I do have some contentions about its record over the last five years, about some of the decisions it has made, which frankly were quite reckless in closing off opportunities for young people. I think the problem with this government has been in the execution of some of its policies in advanced education.
While the minister has talked eloquently on many opportunities about young people, and he has announced many high-profile initiatives to bolster post-secondary education, the highlight of this budget is a new scholarship program for new children born in B.C. — which won't help increase access for anyone until 2025 or 2026. I think it's fair to say that it's doubtful what it may achieve at that future date, given the level of the savings account that it creates in 2025 dollars. But that is really one of the hallmarks of this budget, and we will have some questions about that later on in the estimates.
I think we're in year three of government's commitment to create 25,000 spaces by 2010. We'll maybe begin this afternoon by getting into that and seeing where it is at, at the almost midway point of the initiative. It is of particular interest to me to get the minister's comments, just to look at the budget documents and compare them to a recent report by the Auditor General that was issued in December — a progress report on this initiative.
Then lastly, within the context of our estimates sort of looming over us, maybe the minister can tell us later
[ Page 6885 ]
the date that we might receive the Campus 2020 initiative, which I suppose is a plan to restructure universities and colleges by the year 2020, as the name indicates.
Some of these are great-sounding ideas. They make for great announcements, I know. I'm a regular — I've got the website bookmarked, and I look at those announcements. But as I said, unfortunately, the government's delivery has fallen short of the mark on many occasions.
With that said, I will maybe outline a little bit more of the estimates so that staff, with their expertise, can have a reasonable anticipation of when issues that they will provide the minister advice and answers on can be here. We'll talk about the 25,000-spaces initiative for the balance of the afternoon today and maybe get into some things around tuition fees and student financial assistance.
Tomorrow I wanted to have a look at some of the specific institutions that face program cuts and operational deficits. There are a number of institutions that fall into that category, universities, university colleges and community colleges. I would also like to spend some time tomorrow talking about adult basic education and, within that, adult literacy in general and the student grant funding for those programs that are relevant to it.
Tomorrow, as well, perhaps we can canvass some questions around enrolment, declining enrolment at a variety of colleges — I think eight or nine of them are currently in decline — declining university enrolment, as the case may be in specific institutions, and maybe look provincewide at rural versus urban enrolment trend lines that the minister and his ministry may have concerns and strategies to effect.
On Monday there are maybe some issues that we can get into there. We'll see how Thursday goes, of course, but I would like to talk about research and development on Monday, and private colleges — private post-secondary education — as well.
There are other MLAs that will want to ask questions to the minister, of course, that have institutions in their constituencies and have concerns, so that will punctuate our time during this session. There is one other issue that we can look at on Monday, and that is capital budgets and capital projects at the various public institutions in B.C.
If I can just start with asking some questions about tuition fees, which the minister touched on in his opening remarks. The one is just around a confirmation, because I realize B.C. has its own statistics department and federally we have one as well. So when it comes to seeing where B.C. is at vis-à-vis the other provinces — where we stack up nationally…. If I could begin with tuition fees and look at the figures for 2007, I wonder if the minister could confirm that British Columbian students now pay 14 percent more than the Canadian average.
Hon. M. Coell: Just to give the member a breakdown of universities and colleges, the Canadian university average is $4,347; B.C. is $4,960. In colleges the Canadian average is $2,440, and B.C. is $2,740. We've tried to keep around the average of the provinces. You might be interested that Ontario, for universities, is $5,160 and for colleges, $1,920. So one we're below them, and one we're above.
I think one of the things we've tried to do — and made the commitment for this term of office, the four years — is to keep the rate at the rate of inflation. The other thing that we've done is added money into the university sector, and we're working with the college sector to do that as well. We did a one-time funding of about $20 million to the college sector in the late part of 2006 to complement keeping the tuitions down to the rate of inflation.
The other thing we've done — I think there is some logic to having a student loan and then getting it paid off, if you complete and are successful — is to add in the student debt reduction program so that you have the ability to borrow money to pay the fees. If you are successful, we start to help you pay them down.
R. Fleming: I recall that one of the rationales when the government began its program of aggressively increasing tuition fees — very sharp increases between 2001 and 2006 — was that it aspired to meet the Canadian average. It now greatly exceeds the Canadian average in terms of what fees B.C. students pay for university tuition.
I think — and maybe the minister can confirm this — that for the first time in about 15 years, B.C. students actually pay more than our neighbours in Alberta. Can the minister confirm that British Columbians pay more for university tuition than Albertans?
Hon. M. Coell: In '06-07 we paid $4,636 in the university sector. Alberta was actually $4,780. So they were slightly above us.
What I think I can do for the member that would help…. I think what you're citing is StatsCan, which includes the private sector. What we've got is the public sector. What I'll do is make that available to the member, and then you'll have both the Stats Canada ranking as well as the public sector in British Columbia, which we're in control of.
R. Fleming: Well, I am using Statistics Canada, and it did show that for the first time we exceeded Alberta. The significance of the statistic is that Alberta has always, controversially, been one of the most expensive places to obtain post-secondary education in Canada.
That has always been controversial. That has always been something that the Klein government has been particularly criticized, across Canada, for having done in the 1990s. It is under this government that for the first time it actually became cheaper to study in Alberta than in British Columbia.
If the minister has said that he will share his differing statistics with me, I'll certainly be glad to receive those. Nevertheless, he did cite statistics around the Canadian average from that StatsCan report that did confirm my earlier question around British Columbians paying, on average, 14 percent more than the Canadian
[ Page 6886 ]
average for tuition now. That, of course, stands in contrast to what was promised and what was the policy goal of this government, which was to be at the Canadian average and not above it.
Also in the context, I think, is that budgets are always about choices made, but they're also about choices not made. I know that the Standing Committee on Finance in the province heard, from all corners of British Columbia and from all sectors of society, a strong almost-consensus on looking at tuition fee relief — hoping to achieve it in this budget, given the surplus position that the government is in and given the rationale for earlier, dramatic tuition increases. That's something that obviously didn't clear Treasury Board by the minister.
I wonder if he could comment on why tuition fee relief was rejected by the government as an option to get us to the Canadian average, which was the previous goal of this government.
Hon. M. Coell: I'll get the different statistics to the member quickly so that he can have a look at it. What happens in comparison to other provinces is that we're the sixth-lowest for university undergraduates for 2006-2007. But when you take the private universities and remove them from the StatsCan, we go to fourth.
The two things that we've tried to do are to keep at the rate of inflation…. If you see the statistics across Canada, quite a few provinces have increases above the rate of inflation. The other thing, from my perspective, in doing debt reduction for students is that the students who need it most are borrowing money, but as they succeed, they actually get a quarter of their debt paid back. So that actually reduces what they paid for their tuition fees.
R. Fleming: I don't know whether you get a ribbon for sixth place, but I accept that. I think the point was that British Columbia is well above the Canadian average now, and tuition fee relief was a policy choice that this government did not make, even though they heard overwhelmingly from British Columbians from all sectors across B.C. for that.
It also contrasts with governments in other provinces, regardless of political stripe. We have seen tuition fee reductions come into place under Conservatives in Newfoundland in recent years, under New Democrats in the prairie provinces and in Liberal governments elsewhere — in New Brunswick, I believe, where it was a feature of their most recent budget.
I could maybe move to the issue, just briefly, around another area of national statistics that I think will set the context for other areas of the estimates discussion in the coming days: student debt and the rise in average student debt upon graduation.
I wonder if the minister could confirm that student debt today, or in the most recent fiscal year for which we have statistics, now averages $27,000 per student on a loan for a four-year program and — just so we're talking about the same numbers — whether the minister can confirm the figure as being at or around $17,000 or $18,000 before this government assumed the mandate. In other words, has debt grown by $10,000 on average per student for a four-year program, under this government?
Hon. M. Coell: I could probably give the member an example that might work as an illustration. If a person with no dependents were borrowing at the maximum this year, they would be able to borrow $10,800. If they applied, were successful and got into the loan reduction program, it would be reduced by $2,000. In one year this is reducing by 20 percent the amount of their debt.
I agree with the member. You have to borrow the money first, but what we're doing is a grant at the back end. The encouragement is to succeed and to complete the courses and programs you take, and then the debt reduction or the loan reduction comes at the back end.
R. Fleming: I wasn't getting program-specific at this point. I was just asking for confirmation that the minister is aware of significant increases in average per-student debt loads upon graduation that have grown by almost $10,000 — at or near $10,000 — in a very short period of time since this government assumed its mandate. Perhaps he can comment on that.
If it's $27,000 in average debt now per four-year program — these estimates are structured around three-year increases — surely the ministry has its own projections and maybe its own concerns about B.C. students' debt levels, because we're among the highest in Canada — I think only second to one of the Maritime provinces.
Could the minister comment on what research his ministry has done about debt levels and maybe debt capacities for students and where they see those going over the next three years?
Hon. M. Coell: To try and put it simply, B.C. university students graduate with the fifth-lowest average debt in the country. I realize that if you look back over the last 16 or 17 years, there was a period where tuition was frozen, and this had ramifications for a whole range of things within the university system.
Our government chose to let tuition rise to the national average, which it has done. With the debt reduction program, if you take that into consideration, I think you'll find that we are within the national average — as I say, the fifth-lowest debt in the country.
But I take the member seriously. I think when you look at 50 percent of people graduating with no debt and 50 percent graduating with a variety of levels of debt, we want to make sure that the system is available for people who can't afford to pay the full fare up front.
That was the reason — and I think you'll find that the other provinces are looking at it, as well — that paying down the debt is a positive thing to do. It is working in British Columbia, and I think you'll find that it starts to work in other provinces as well.
R. Fleming: Well, again I don't know. Maybe we're quibbling with Statistics Canada. They clearly have
[ Page 6887 ]
identified B.C. as the jurisdiction of the ten provinces with the second-highest student debt levels upon graduation now. I do look forward to getting those statistics, because that's a national apples-to-apples comparison, presumably.
I don't think the minister commented on the staggering increase in debt in a short period of time during this government's mandate — growing by almost $10,000 per student, that is, on loans upon graduation.
I would appreciate a direct answer as to whether that is a top-of-mind concern for the minister for his government and where they see that trend line, which is very disturbing. I mean, it's a staggering growth in per-student debt. Where do they see it going in three years over the cycle of the span of time that this budget estimate period covers?
Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is right. Statistics Canada tends to lump all the Atlantic provinces into one number and then use that to go against the other provinces as well. So that may make a change in that statistic.
I take what the member is saying seriously. I think that student debt is something we have to watch closely. We have to make sure that we have got answers to that. Our answer in the first two years of this mandate was to institute the loan forgiveness program. That initiated about a $67 million paydown of student debt in the first year, it's about $77 million this year, and we'll watch and see how we can enhance that as we monitor student debt in the province.
R. Fleming: Yeah, I think we'll get into the figures around that $77 million, because I do want to highlight the federal contribution versus the provincial share, which is small. I appreciate the minister's answer there because he did acknowledge that we're second to Atlantic Canada — which historically has always had very high tuition fees, the highest in the country, and still does — and that debt levels are very high here in British Columbia.
I wonder if he could comment on the last part of that question now. Has the minister ordered or asked for research into the growth in debt that has been approximately $10,000 per student since this government came into power, and where does he see that going over the three years of these budget estimates? Because it is related. It's a trend line that is out there. It has other impacts in the economy.
Students are already having a difficult time managing repayment at that level of debt — understandably. Of course, "on average" means that there are many more in there with unbelievable amounts of debt. We're going to get into declining enrolment later on, and this could be a disincentive. If the minister could comment on research he may have about that?
Hon. M. Coell: I have asked staff to look at impediments for people to enter the post-secondary system. They're looking at a number of factors, and we'll hopefully be reporting back later this year.
R. Fleming: There was some research in 2003, and this was just at the very beginning when the government was really ramping up tuition fees and beginning this experiment in how much debt students could take on and how much in tuition fees they were willing to pay before you saw enrolment declines.
We're going back to 2003, but there were studies from UVic and UBC that I'm aware of. Their student services administration conducted surveys, I suppose, that established that there were many students leaving their studies because tuition fees were going up so dramatically and because student debt loads they were having to take on were increasing.
Has the minister received research from those institutions that has followed up on those 2003 studies? Is he aware of research within the sector here that suggests that there are students quitting their studies as tuition has gone up by over 100 percent now — in graduate studies I believe it's 184 percent — since this government took its mandate?
Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we're aware of those studies, and they are a part of what staff are reviewing.
There are other studies. The Education Policy Institute says that tuition is one of the lowest indicators, that there are others — cost of living, transportation, those other items as well.
Staff are looking through those and hopefully will bring some recommendations later this year. I think it's important to the post-secondary system. The budget is $2 billion yearly — and many other capital projects, which are actually a long-term cost to the province.
It's a good deal for young people to go to post-secondary education. They are going to improve their longtime income, and that helps the province as well, as the member said in his opening statements.
If someone has to borrow some money to get the graduation through…. A bachelor's degree can add half a million dollars to your income in your lifetime, so it's an investment in yourself. There are many different ways to look at tuition, but one of the things that we want to do is make sure it's not a barrier.
I think we probably talked somewhat about this — whether it's a barrier for very low-income people and families, whether it's a barrier for aboriginal people — and that's why you'll see a number of aboriginal scholarship programs we've built, and the debt reduction program. It really hits the people who have borrowed the most amount of money with the biggest amount of money reduced on their debt.
I look forward to carrying on this conversation. I think it's a very valuable one, and I think that we have to find a balance in society, where there is a subsidy to education but there is also a responsibility for your education, as a student.
As I say, it's a great deal in most instances to invest in your education, because it increases your yearly income, and studies show it increases your health and your family's health throughout your lifetime. It's an
[ Page 6888 ]
important discussion we're having, and I look forward to continuing.
R. Fleming: Yeah, and let's continue, because I think one thing that is clear with this government is they do have a very different view, and they do, as the minister said, look at post-secondary education, I think, far too much. They have bent the stick far too much in the direction of seeing education credentials as primarily an individual benefit.
You cannot run a society without doctors, nurses, engineers, business administrators, artists, scientists, high-tech — the people who keep our BlackBerrys and computers running and all that stuff that I don't understand very well….
Interjection.
R. Fleming: Pardon me? I think what you have probably hit on very early on in the estimates here is a difference between the two sides of the House, whereas this government has shifted more and more of the costs of education to the individual, and that's had an impact. It's because this government sees it primarily as an individual benefit — perhaps too much.
Of course it has an individual benefit, and the minister pointed to some of the higher rates of pay that certain graduates may hope to enjoy. Although it's interesting — a social worker certainly wouldn't make as much as, maybe, another profession, but they pay virtually the same tuition fees. There are inequalities here at play.
What I think, in terms of illustrating the shift, and maybe the minister can confirm this for me…. At our four major public universities in British Columbia, prior to this government assuming office, the funding from the province was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70-plus percent. Can you confirm that today it is just above 50 percent — maybe somewhere between 50 and 54 percent — at the major universities?
Hon. M. Coell: I think what you have seen…. There are a number of different areas, and I'll try and get some more information as we carry on. There is more money going into the research universities from the federal government than there was in the past. There is more private money going into universities in the way of endowments and bursaries, and tuition is one as well.
I want to draw a distinction for the member between just reducing tuitions for everyone. There are a lot of people who can afford to pay the tuition. What we want to do as a government is to make sure that if someone needs to get into college or university, there is a mechanism, and student loans are that mechanism that they can loan.
I think it's important that we start to pay down those loans for people who are of lower income. They get in, they get the money, they succeed, and then we start to help them pay down the loan. But if you just lower tuitions, there is a whole group of people out there who don't need a subsidy, who all of a sudden you begin to subsidize.
It's a philosophical discussion worth having. Is that the best use of the overall education funds? Or would taking that money and putting it into helping people, who are of lower income and maybe not necessarily going to go to college or university, by helping them repay their debts and pay down their debts…?
R. Fleming: What's interesting, though, is that this government has doubled tuition fees in a very short period of time, but at the same time they also chose to eliminate student grants programs for years 1 to 4.
The people who qualified for grants were exactly the people the minister was just saying governments should focus on. They were means-tested. Their incomes were known to the government to be low and middle — students who could not otherwise afford to attend. Those grants programs that were there for them were eliminated. I think the final one was eliminated in 2003 by this government. British Columbian students have got it at both ends. They've got it from paying higher tuition fees, and they've got it from reduced grant programs.
We're going to come back to student financial assistance a number of times, because it is relevant to participation rates and all kinds of things we want to discuss. I want to maybe just go to the national picture and ask the minister to provide the committee with a bit of understanding as to what may be going on.
The first ministers have been meeting on a number of occasions in the last couple of years to discuss advanced education. One of the agenda items that those discussions are centred around is transfer payments to the provinces. Can the minister give the committee any indication whether there has been progress made by the Premier of British Columbia in restoring transfer payments from the federal government?
Hon. M. Coell: A number of issues. I took part in the meetings in Ottawa about 18 months ago that were looking at restoring transfers to the levels that the federal government had previously given, especially transfers for post-secondary education. We've also made representations through CMEC that we want to see more money flow from the federal government to the post-secondary system.
The difference between the tack British Columbia has taken at those meetings and the rest of the provinces is that we have said to the federal government that we will not object if they want to deal directly with students or institutions. The rationale and the difference there is that historically the province would receive the money, and they would divvy it up as they individually wanted to students and to institutions.
We have on a number of occasions said to the federal government: "If you wish to deal directly with students or with individual institutions or institutions as a whole or research dollars, we will not stand in your way. We'll actually assist." In some cases we would match those funds. But we haven't heard anything back from the federal government at this point. I haven't seen anything in this year's budget that would tell us that there is a major change coming. But we
[ Page 6889 ]
have a minority government, as the member knows, and an election on the horizon. Who knows what the future will bring from the federal government?
R. Fleming: I appreciate that there is some political uncertainty.
One of the things that the minority government that exists now inherited from the previous government was a budget that committed money to the provinces for advanced education. It's my understanding that this money is still forthcoming to the province, and I think that all the government has done is maybe attached some strings to it around what the money is for. I think the previous minority government had wanted it to be for student financial assistance and tuition relief primarily, and my understanding is that the province has been directed to put this additional money into capital spending on campuses. Is this correct? I think the money came under what was known as Bill 9 in that previous government.
Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is correct. It was transferred from the federal government to the provinces for infrastructure.
R. Fleming: Maybe the minister can tell me how much that federal money is, where it currently resides and how it will be proportionately allocated to the varying institutions.
[D. Hayer in the chair.]
Hon. M. Coell: I don't have that figure, but I will get that from Finance for the member.
R. Fleming: Are you getting it right now?
A Voice: He's left it sitting at the end of the table.
R. Fleming: Oh. Yes, well, maybe we can be helped out by some of the other members in attendance, because if that figure has been confirmed and it…. I guess my question is: did it come in some kind of block transfer? Or was it broken out as it was originally intended to be — designated for post-secondary education?
I know a number of university presidents and government relations people in the post-secondary sector want to know what they might be able to anticipate. They're struggling with capital budgets. I promised we wouldn't talk about this until Monday, but I'm getting into it now. I'm just wondering if you can get…. Is that figure in the service plan? Is that money in there somewhere in the service plan just as your federal dollars for student aid are reported here as B.C. dollars?
Hon. M. Coell: I'll need to get the dollar figure. But what you've seen in the last five years is about $1 billion spent of the capital, and that leverages a number of other federal and private sector moneys as well. In our three-year capital plan there is a significant amount of money per year and some of that, of course, would be some of the federal money that's been transferred. I'll get that number for you.
R. Fleming: I think it's really important to track the number, because the minister participates at CMEC, and the Premier's conferences talk about a fiscal relationship with the federal government that needs rebalancing. It's just a fact that advanced education in Canada gets…. Provinces receive about $2 billion less than they did perhaps a decade ago.
I would hope that the minister…. In order for us to credibly put the case that the federal government should be investing more in advanced education, we should be able to account for how some of the money that we are getting back, albeit targeted to capital projects, is coming into the province and how it's being spent. I look forward to that information.
Looking ahead to 2009, the millennium scholarship is going to be wound down, and surely that has been a topic at CMEC meetings. That federal decision will obviously have an impact on students here. Have there been discussions at that table, and can the minister provide any insights to the committee about what might replace the millennium scholarship fund?
Hon. M. Coell: The member is correct. It would need another injection of funds in '09-10. CMEC has been — and that's all of the provinces and territories — very firm with the federal government that we believe they need to do that, that it has been a benefit to post-secondary education not just in British Columbia but all across Canada.
R. Fleming: I alluded to this report earlier, the report on the 2007 budget consultations, and suggested that it was unfortunate that the government hadn't heard British Columbians that in all corners of the province came out to hearings and testified that they wanted to see tuition fee relief and student financial assistance in the non-repayable portion in particular — the grant portion. They wanted to see some of those programs restored, and they thought it was particularly fitting that this be done, given the fiscal position and the surplus position of the province.
I want to go through the recommendations with the minister and just ask him whether he reviewed and what consideration he gave to some of those recommendations. First of all, the one to increase funding to allow for the elimination of fees charged for adult basic education. I'm speaking of all students who wish to access ABE — not just the ones who haven't graduated from high school before, but basically anyone.
Hon. M. Coell: We're looking at this very closely. It looks like it's about $4 million a year to have all of the people covered for ABE. It's one that I've had a number of representations on, from students as well as faculty unions. It's an area that I've asked staff to look at as to what the funding would be over a period of a couple of years if it was to be restored.
[ Page 6890 ]
R. Fleming: I'm very glad to hear that the minister is actively considering it. I think this was probably as good an opportunity as any to accomplish it in this budget. It's unfortunate that it's not there. Maybe the Minister of Finance cares to go on record as to whether she supports it and we can anticipate this in the very near future.
There are some other recommendations in this report of the standing committee. One of them is — and I think it's probably fair to say this is a watered-down version — that we ensure in this budget that tuition fees at B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions remain competitive vis-à-vis other Canadian jurisdictions. We're now 15 percent over the national average, and nothing was done around tuition fee relief.
The other was to ask for a review as to whether B.C.'s income assistance policy to enable income assistance recipients to access further education opportunities has been looked at. Has the minister had any discussion with his cabinet colleagues in the other relevant ministries about this?
Hon. M. Coell: That's a good question. There are a number of people who can access…. People with disabilities are one. We're doing a number of studies to see whether there are subgroups of people that would benefit from being able to stay on income assistance and go back to school.
There is a lot of literature showing that in the long run, people are better off having short-term training, going into the workforce, building up a whole bunch of personal esteem, getting finances in order and then going back to school. We're aware that there may be some people that that just doesn't work for — to go into a short training program, into the workforce and then back, either in night school or in taking out a student loan. We're looking at that, and we are talking actively with other ministries.
R. Fleming: I appreciate that answer. We'll definitely be monitoring that. We think that it's a good idea and that the minister is correct. There are certain categories of people on income assistance — certain people as students — that will be helped to get off benefits by receiving better training that they're actually more interested in pursuing and getting employment from.
Just to go back to student financial assistance for a minute, and maybe on some statistics. Could the minister tell us how many students his ministry expects will receive some form of provincial government student financial assistance this year and in the subsequent fiscal years?
Hon. M. Coell: We think between 50,000 and 60,000 this year. Then growing with the rate of inflation and the number of new seats, it would probably be about 3 percent per year.
R. Fleming: Maybe the minister could tell me…. Well, 50,000 to 60,000 is not a very accurate number. Can we do better than that? Can we also maybe look at it for the past three fiscal years?
Hon. M. Coell: In the past three years…. If you go to 2003-2004, there were 66,465 individuals who applied. In 2004-2005 there were 59,432, and in 2005-2006 there were 57,648. We're saying between 50,000 and 60,000, but you are probably closer to say 55,000 to 60,000, I think.
R. Fleming: The last number you gave me was for the '05-06 year. Is that correct, Minister?
Hon. M. Coell: Yup.
R. Fleming: Now you're projecting in this budget what the baseline figure is for this year. I know that you've suggested that it's plus-3 percent in the last two years of the service plan. Can you just give me the baseline?
Hon. M. Coell: What we've forecast is the amount of money that we expect to lend, rather than the individuals, because that makes a difference whether it's someone who's coming in as an individual or as a single parent with two children or as a family. We think that the increase will be 3 percent of the money loaned in the next few years.
One of the things we've found…. You look at the provinces that are having a strong economy and they're all experiencing this trend in individuals going down. The ones that aren't don't experience the same trend.
R. Fleming: The trend that you've outlined with the answer you gave about the past three fiscal years…. I know that you track it by dollars. In terms of individuals, going from 66,000 persons to 57,000 in three years, I think, is an interesting number. It tells you something that's going on in the advanced education sector, and it's a number worth tracking.
The ministry service plan calls for a $22 million reduction in student financial assistance spending for this year. Can you tell me what's going on within this number? We've just talked about gross numbers of students versus the amount loaned, and while the number of students is going down that receive loans, you've suggested that the amount loaned is increasing. Maybe you could tell me how that squares and what the explanation is for this increase in the amount of money loaned.
Hon. M. Coell: Just a couple of comments. We've got more students involved in post-secondary education than ever before in the province. There is a greater percentage of people working part-time and going to school part-time. We're seeing that those particular students aren't applying for student loans. So that's a change. We also have better summer jobs in the province, so people are actually making more money in the summer than they were before. That affects how much people want to borrow as well.
[ Page 6891 ]
One of the things you mentioned, Member, is the $22 million decrease in the fund. Well, I think that we would safely say that anyone who applies for assistance and qualifies will get it. There won't be a shortage of money in that fund. What we've seen in the last few years is that there's been money left over in that fund as well.
R. Fleming: I mean, another number in the budget service plan here is that after adjusting for inflation, the amount of money allocated to student financial assistance in 2008-2009 is actually going to be lower than the amount in 2006-2007.
You've provided your own explanation there, but can you maybe provide this in the context of rising tuition fees and living expenses, which continue to grow? I'm wondering if there is something else going on here in terms of the mix of students that are now attending advanced education. Maybe I'll pick up on your answer, the part about the part-time students, after you reply to this.
Hon. M. Coell: I'll try to explain. With the reduction in the $22 million, we're experiencing an increase in recovery of $14 million. That's more people paying back their debt. The direct lending is down $8 million, and then there are some others in there, as well, for about a half a million dollars.
What it's enabled us to do is to take those funds and distribute them into other interest relief. The loan reduction program, the volumes and thresholds of family contribution, we're able to adjust. It's not as if that money is lost to the ministry and to programs. We've tried to move that reduction into other areas.
The fact that at the end of the year we just keep having a surplus of $20 million doesn't really make too much sense. We want to be able to more accurately at the end of the year say that we met the target. That's why I think with a great deal of comfort we could say that anyone who applies for student loans in B.C., if they are eligible, will get the loan. There is plenty of money to do that there. But at the same time, you can almost show where we've taken that money and put it into other parts of the system as well.
R. Fleming: Because we're talking about net figures within this program, maybe we can just go to the disbursement number for a moment. Maybe the minister can confirm that last year the B.C. student loan disbursement totalled nearly $307 million. So if you could confirm that number first.
Hon. M. Coell: I think that's a good question. In the blue book you were looking at $306 million. It's now gone down to $270 million, which is probably closer to what we need. But the actual was $209 million, so you can see the reason for saying that we can make do with quite a bit less and that all students, if they qualify, will be eligible and will get the funds they need. There's lots of money there.
R. Fleming: That was for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 — a couple of weeks ago. Going back five years — I don't know if we're allowed to do that — disbursements were something like $115 million. Can the minister confirm that, just as a contrast in terms of looking at the overall amount loaned?
Hon. M. Coell: The furthest I can go back is 2001-2002. Disbursements were $90 million.
R. Fleming: Okay. Well, I think we now know where student debt is coming from in terms of that average. It actually has been a dramatic shift to the individual, to the debt upon graduation. We talked about it going up $10,000 per student, and we can see it in the overall disbursement of the student loan program.
I wonder if I could get the minister to confirm that in the budget for this fiscal year there'll be an extra $44 million coming from tuition fees in the system.
Hon. M. Coell: I don't have that exact number. If you assume 2 percent of the overall base…. I'll get staff to work it out on a calculator for you.
R. Fleming: I'll wait for that, then. Maybe what we will do at this time, if it's okay with the minister, is just begin a bit of discussion around the 25,000 spaces by 2010, which I thought we could begin anyway this afternoon and use the balance of our time.
The report I'll be referring to is, I guess, not part of the service plan package, but I know the minister is very familiar with it. It's a timely report. It was issued in December by the Office of the Auditor General. The title of it is Government's Post-Secondary Expansion: 25,000 Seats by 2010. Let me just get to my notes on it.
Maybe just to start off, I could ask the minister: in terms of setting the parameters of the program — I call it a program; I know it's a slogan as well — where did the government come up with its target of 25,000 new spaces? I know it's a nice round number. It sounds good in a press release, but what is it actually based on?
Hon. M. Coell: A couple of comments. The participation rate of British Columbians historically has been lower than the average of Canadian provinces for people going into post-secondary education. I think that's probably, historically, because of the mining and logging and fishing and farming industries.
What we looked at is what the participation rate was in the cohort of 18-to-29 and different cohorts. We said that if our rate was 2 percent, we would double it. So when you added all those up, it came to something like 24,800. But the other side of that was that you almost had to have an A or an A-plus average to get into most of our universities. How do you get that down to a B-plus?
How we would judge success would be: how does that start to move down to a B-plus so that more people can enter and we start to see a bigger participation rate for British Columbians? That's something we're
[ Page 6892 ]
still doing — with graduate students as well. How do we get more and more students to consider any kind of post-secondary education?
I think a good example of that would be the number of jobs that will become available in the province between now and 2015. I think it's something like a million, and we're only going to graduate 600,000-odd students from grade 12. If we're going to fill those jobs, we're going to have to have a higher percentage of students who graduate from grade 12 decide to go into post-secondary education, because a good 70 percent of those jobs need a post-secondary education.
It's a dilemma, but it's one that I think is fixable in the long run. You just need to have a greater percentage of students graduate high school, a greater percentage go on to university or college, and you have to provide them the spaces and fund the spaces. In some instances you can provide spaces without funding, and that just creates problems for class size and the number of classes.
It was a fairly in-depth look at how we could achieve that goal and how you'd measure that, and really measuring it was coming down from the A average to the B or B-plus average as well.
R. Fleming: Could the minister tell me…? I'll pick the University of British Columbia. Could you tell me the grade letter or grade point average for admission to UBC arts and sciences and, to pick another program, UBC engineering?
Hon. M. Coell: A couple of options. UBC and UBC Okanagan, when you put them together…. UBC has been quite straight with us that the 75 percent in arts and sciences is happening on their campus and at UBC Okanagan. They haven't made the gains that UVic and SFU have done in lowering from around 80 to 87 percent to 77 to 74 percent.
At this point they are maintaining a higher…. For arts it was 80 percent. It's now actually 83 percent, but it's 75 percent at the university campus at Okanagan, and that's what their intent was. UNBC has been lower as well. It's 65 percent. SFU is 77 and 74, so there are a variety of changes. Some of them have a little bit more work to do, and others are there already.
R. Fleming: Well, I think I heard that at UBC — at the main campus, the largest campus in B.C. — actually, the grade point average has gone up during this spaces expansion. I asked the minister a moment ago where the round number came from, and he gave an answer. Can he provide the committee with any of the background, research or advice that led to the establishment of that number as well?
Hon. M. Coell: I may have been a little rambling in my last answer, but that's basically exactly what we did. We looked at the cohort and said we were deficient in that area. We doubled it, and that came out to that number. One of the ways we were going to see how we met that was that the grade point average will go down.
One of the reasons for UBC having no basic change at their main campus is that they've changed from having 5-to-1 graduate students to 4-to-1 graduate students, and it makes quite a difference. That's why they have maintained that the Okanagan College will be where the grade point average comes down. It's more of an undergraduate campus at this point than their main campus, but that changing from 5-to-1 graduate students to 4 to 1 is quite significant.
R. Fleming: On the cohort of 18-to-29-year-olds, the government looked at increasing the participation rate. B.C. has historically been lower, although I think we caught up very dramatically during the 1990s to what we had in the 1980s. But on the cohort, the government looked at the number of 18-to-29-year-olds, or people coming through in that demographic, over the horizon of this space initiative. So 25,000 spaces was picked as the number.
Now, my understanding is that during the expansion program it will be something like 75,000 additional 18-to-29-year-old British Columbians. What is the participation rate that we're talking about? It sounds to me very much like the status quo today.
Hon. M. Coell: Interesting thought. During the '80s and '90s there really wasn't a catch-up when you look at the overall numbers. I guess the difference between that cohort of 18-to-29…. If we double the number of FTEs — I think that's probably the best way of looking at it — we will indeed reach the target, and we will have increased the participation rate by that many as well.
R. Fleming: Perhaps I can help the minister with comparing the latter half of the 1990s with his space initiative, because the Auditor General has done the work for me. It's in appendix B of his report, page 61. It looks at total numbers in the system and their increase. In fact, when we look at community colleges accumulatively, for example, we've seen in some years a net decrease of 4 or 5 percent and in some cases 12 percent per institution. We saw exactly the converse kind of growth in the late 1990s.
I don't know how he can make a statement like that unless he's quibbling with the numbers that the Auditor General has used here, and I think they stand up. Can the minister, just going to the current count on the space expansion, provide what that number is today?
Hon. M. Coell: As of '06-07 we have added 11,811 spaces to date.
I just wanted to comment on the difference in time. In the '90s we didn't have an economy where people could have the option of getting a job in many instances and in many areas of the province. That's not the only reason. There are lots of reasons why enrolment in colleges and universities fluctuates across the country, but a good factor to look at is the economy.
[ Page 6893 ]
The hotter the economy, the more likely people will go and work for a couple of years before they go and do what they want to do.
I know I was a student in the '70s, and in the '80s there was pretty well no work in British Columbia. So in the '80s there were a lot of people that went back and did master's degrees and unclassified years just because there wasn't employment out there. That's just a fact of what it was. That will indeed fluctuate in the future as well, and students will make that choice when there is opportunity out there.
The Chair: Noting the time.
R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just ask one more question, and then I know the committee will have to rise.
The Auditor General looked at the data available to him and compared it to the spaces achieved versus the spaces targeted in this initiative. The report suggested that there were something like 7,400 new spaces created at the point in time that he did this snapshot review. According to where the target benchmark for the spaces initially should have been…. It should have been around 12,500.
The minister has given me a number as to where they are right now, midway through this academic year. The government had only achieved 54 percent of its target when this report was issued in December, based on the data to that point. Can the minister tell me where this number that he has given me now for the spaces created compares to the benchmark that the initiative has?
Hon. M. Coell: I very much appreciated the report the Auditor General did. It was timely. We were slower to start up than we would have liked, but there were a number of reasons for that. One is the capital projects that were undertaken — the spaces for labs and for residences and for classrooms and that sort of thing. We were building those as the 25,000 was started. As he says, we're on track now, and he's satisfied that we'll meet our goal.
I think it was timely to do that and to see that there was a slow start, but we're back on track and moving to a utilization of about 96 percent in 2006-2007.
R. Fleming: I look forward to maybe continuing on the spaces initiative tomorrow.
For now I would move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Education and progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on
the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the
Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright ©
2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175