Hansard — Thursday, April 19, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		6921

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6922
	Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 29)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 25)
	Hon. O. Ilich
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 26)
	Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6923
	Burnaby Festival of Volunteers
	R. Lee
	Caring Place programs in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows
	M. Sather
	Chinese Canadian Military Museum
	J. Yap
	Carveth and Hammond hockey brothers
	J. Horgan
	Friendship between seniors and students in Kelowna
	S. Hawkins
	Issues for working women
	C. Trevena

Oral Questions		6925
	Response of Premier to MLA questions on actions of former Finance Deputy Minister
	H. Lali
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Terms of reference for KPMG investigation into actions of former Finance Deputy Minister
	L. Krog
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston
	M. Farnworth
	R. Fleming
	Privacy Commissioner review of lobbying activities of Ken Dobell
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Call for removal of Ken Dobell from 2010 Legacies Now board
	H. Bains
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Funding for Buy B.C. program
	C. Evans
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Ambulance service in Chilcotin region
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Funding for child care in Vancouver
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid

Point of Privilege		6930
	M. Karagianis

Motions without Notice		6930
	Powers and role of Crown Corporations Committee
	Powers and role of Finance and Government Services Committee
	Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
	Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		6931
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply		6936
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6953
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued)
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Fleming
	C. Wyse
	C. Trevena

J. Yap: I have number of introductions that I'm really honoured to make. Today I had lunch with a wonderful group of people. Many of them are veterans and friends and members of the Chinese Canadian Military Museum. Here with us today in the gallery are Lt.-Col. Howe Lee, who is with the 12 Service Battalion — the honorary colonel; Lt.-Col. George Ing, retired, who is a constituent of mine; and also veterans Alex Louie, Willie Chong, Bing Wong, Frank Wong, Ed Lee, Paul Tsui and Kelly Kwong. From the veteran community in Victoria are Gordie Quon, Andy Wong, Paul Chan and Hank Lowe.

Accompanying them are Rosalyn Ing and Judy Maxwell — who, I might add, is a PhD student and historian and whose great-grandfather was one of the first Liberal federal cabinet ministers in the 1880s. Would the House please provide a warm greeting to these folks.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have two introductions that I'm happy to make today. First is Dr. Terry Sullivan, visiting us from Kamloops. He's the superintendent of school district 73. On behalf of my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson, Mr. John Harwood, the chairman of the board, and members of his family are visiting us from Clearwater. Please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Yesterday we had a number of guests from the UBCM executive. Today we are joined by even more who are here to watch question period. We have today Councillor Sharon Gaetz from Chilliwack, the UBCM director; Susie Gimse, Squamish-Lillooet regional district; and Erin Morrison, who is with UBCM staff. We also have UBCM executive member, past president of UBCM, Councillor Marvin Hunt from Surrey. As well, we have Mayor Joe Snopek from Creston. I hope the House would please make them all very welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce Stephanie Cadieux, director of marketing and public relations for the British Columbia Paraplegic Association. Would the House please join me in welcoming Stephanie to the House.

Hon. G. Hogg: We're joined in the House today by two couples, one who lives just outside the precincts here and has not been here to visit, and a second couple from Surrey–White Rock who have been longtime residents of the area and great contributors to the social and commercial environment of the area and have been negligent in not coming to this House previously. Would the House please welcome Larry and Maureen Hamblin and Pat and Steve Brown.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today has been proclaimed child abuse prevention day here in British Columbia. Over the noonhour we had an opportunity for a small event to launch two handbooks to assist professionals as well as the general public in identifying signs of child abuse or neglect and knowing what to do in terms of reporting those.

We're joined today in the gallery by number of people from different agencies who government works closely with in our communities on issues of abuse and neglect. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming these individuals. I'll just list them quickly.

We have Theresa Campbell, who is manager of Safe Schools for the Surrey school district; as well as Insp. John Charlton, the officer in charge of the detective division for the Saanich police; Annalynn Richardson, the president of Victoria Minor Hockey Association; and Rob Richardson, the vice president and head coach for Victoria Minor Hockey Association.

There's Adrienne Glen, who is with the child protection service unit at B.C.'s Children's Hospital; Suzanne Cole, youth and family services team leader with the Burnside Gorge Community Centre; Irene Rathbone, who is with public health nursing with the Vancouver Island Health Authority; as well as Susan Boyle, a public health nurse with the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

There's Paul Lecerte, who is the executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres; John Price, who is the public information officer with the Saanich police; as well as Barb Webber, the officer in charge with the Saanich police youth section and child abuse team. Finally, there's Ron McQuarrie, the past president of the Saanich Lacrosse Association.

Each of the individuals, in the work that they do each day, works with children and youth and assists all of us in ensuring that children and youth are not experiencing abuse or neglect in the province of British Columbia. I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome to the House today.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add my voice of welcome to Susie Gimse who, as the Minister of Community Services mentioned, was part of the UBCM delegation here in Victoria today. But Susie is an electoral area C rep in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district and a constituent of mine in Birken. I would ask the House again to welcome Susie Gimse.

A. Horning: Visiting us today from Kelowna is school trustee Wayne Horning and his wife Pat. I normally refer to Wayne as my little brother. Would you please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: Likewise, I would like to add my welcome to the representatives from the UBCM and also acknowledge the breakfast that they put on for us this morning and recognize the service that the people from the UBCM and the people they represent provide for the people of British Columbia.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. The planning for future incapacity and ensuring that an effective safety net exists for incapable adults is extremely important. It's becoming increasingly important with our aging population.

Bill 29 clarifies and modernizes the laws governing how decisions are made for adults who are incapable of making decisions on their own. It will increase certainty and protection for adults when they are most vulnerable. Bill 29 will ensure that British Columbians have the best tools possible for making effective incapacity plans in the areas of health care, personal care and financial and legal affairs.

Bill 29 will also amend the Adult Guardianship Act to replace the Patients Property Act and reflect upon modern guardianship principles of individual autonomy and dignity. It will also provide appropriate protections for our aging population.

Last spring we introduced legislation similar to Bill 29. That legislation did not proceed, in order to allow additional work to be done related to advanced care directives. Further consultation has occurred over the past year — both broad public consultations and focused discussions with different groups and stakeholders — and this bill has benefited greatly from the input of many individuals and organizations.

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

Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes 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.

Hon. O. Ilich presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read now for a first time.

Hon. O. Ilich: Bill 25 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Labour Relations Code as well as the Workers Compensation Act.

The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the act and include a number of other changes and amendments that will clarify and update certain provisions. The amendments will enhance privacy protection and strengthen the act by improving disclosure processes and improving consistencies in the act. The amendments continue government's tradition of enhancing the FOIPPA Act — the privacy and access provisions thereof — to ensure that it remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada.

The change to the Workers Compensation Act provides that workers advisers and employers advisers will be appointed as employees of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services under the Public Service Act rather than by order-in-council.

The change to the Labour Relations Code introduces a new requirement for the Labour Relations Board to make decisions on complaints or applications within time periods prescribed by regulation. This proposed amendment responds to concerns about LRB time lines that businesses, unions and employees have raised and will provide better accountability and improved service.

Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 25 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes 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.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 26, entitled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to introduce this bill today. The Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, will amend three separate acts. First is the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act — to provide clear direction on the admission procedure and continued residence of adults in care facilities; apply the definition of a care facility to a broader range of facilities; provide protection for individuals and their

families with a provincial standard guiding the admission or release of individuals in residential care facilities; and finally, in respect of this act, to provide a safe and clear framework to support care facilities, health authorities and individuals to make better choices in long-term care.

As well, the Health Emergency Act will be amended to transfer the B.C. HealthGuide program to the Emergency Health Services Commission to expand and strengthen the scope of its health information services. These amalgamated services will be called health line services B.C. and will better enhance and expand prehospital care, self-care and health system navigation service in the future. Under a single commission these linkages will continue in areas like patient transfers and referrals of non-emergency 911 calls.

Finally, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, will amend the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to allow electronic prescriptions to be recorded in the province's PharmaNet System and provide a new level of accountability to British Columbians' personal health information through the future provision for authorized on-line patient access to their own medication profile and access log.

This will clarify the types of information that must be recorded within PharmaNet. It will add new types of information that may be recorded within PharmaNet, such as over-the-counter medication.

The changes we're introducing today will also mandate how information can be used and will facilitate electronic prescribing through PharmaNet and direct patient access to PharmaNet. It will also add the sharing of information within PharmaNet with health information banks under the Health Act. Overall, the amendments support the development of the province's ambitious e-health initiatives.

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

Bill 26, Health Statutes 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.

R. Lee: This is our country's National Volunteer Week to honour and recognize our hard-working citizens who donate energy and time to their communities. This Saturday the fourth Burnaby Festival of Volunteers will be held in Metrotown from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. Many non-profit organizations will be displaying their services as well as getting opportunities to recruit volunteers.

As founding co-chair of this festival, I would like to invite all members of this House to this special event. You'll be entertained by a Bengal dance performance by Kanchan Lal; traditional Chinese dance by members of the Chen Ling Academy of Dance; the North Burnaby Retired Seniors Society; a youth orchestra by Kabok Strings and guitar solo by Kabok Guitar; and a kung fu performance by Dan Kun. You don't want to miss the opportunity to take part in the hip-hop dance with Dianna David.

Many groups have registered for this special day, including the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, Big Brothers of Greater Vancouver, Big Sisters of B.C. Lower Mainland, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Burnaby Community Connections, Burnaby Hospice Society, Burnaby Metrotown Rotary, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society, Burnaby village museum, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver, Down Syndrome Research Foundation, Girl Guides of Canada, Seton Villa, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, Sunshine Dream for Kids, TB Vets Charitable Foundation, Urban Native Youth Association, Vancouver International Children's Festival, Vancouver Grandparents and Volunteers Now.

I would like the House to join me in thanking the sponsors and the organizing committee members: Lee Faurot, Oscar Cruz, Amy Sundberg, John Renko, Ken Ryan, Cynthia Hendrix, Patrick Ng, Judy Chu and volunteers Jane Leah and students from the Alpha Secondary School for their time and energy to make this Burnaby Festival of Volunteers a success.

M. Sather: The Caring Place has been a dedicated service provider in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows for many years. Under the auspices of the Salvation Army and with the guidance of Capt. Kathy Chiu, the Caring Place serves the needs of those struggling in their lives for a variety of reasons. The Caring Place runs an 18-plus-bed emergency shelter where people can stay for one to three weeks during transitional periods. They offer 30 additional cold-wet weather mats, which operated at 100-percent capacity this winter.

With an additional 19 transitional housing beds, people are able to live at the Caring Place for up to three years, where they receive counselling and participate in life skills programs through the healthy living program. Six of these beds are reserved for those with mental health and addictions issues. By working with partners in mental health and other local service groups, individuals are provided the services they require. With an excellent client advocacy service, many people have entered drug and alcohol treatment and found safer accommodation.

The community meal program at the centre offers dignity to individuals who are hungry in our community by allowing them to come in, sit down and be served a meal. The community meal program serves over 6,000 meals a month.

The dedicated staff at the Caring Place work tirelessly to meet the needs of those struggling in our

communities. Their priority is to restore the dignity and self-respect of every person who enters their facility. Staff want clients to know that someone cares.

The work of the Caring Place reminds us all that more is needed in order to provide housing and health care for our most vulnerable citizens.

J. Yap: Today I rise to speak about a very important cultural institution in British Columbia, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum. A non-profit organization since 1998, the museum is located in the heart of Vancouver's Chinatown. Howe Lee, the president and founder, had a vision to preserve, collect and bring to light the artifacts and memorabilia and, most importantly, the stories of the Chinese Canadian veterans that risked their lives in order to serve Canada during World War II, despite the blatant racism and indignities they faced at the time.

When war began in Europe in 1939, there was debate within the Chinese Canadian community as to whether or not they should participate and fight for a country that they felt treated them as second-class citizens. Even as many volunteered, most were rejected because of their ethnicity. But all of that changed when Japan entered the war, and many were recruited to help with undercover operations in Asia. Soon the Canadian military had Chinese Canadians serving in all areas of operations, fighting not only for freedom but for equality in their country.

At the war's end over 600 Chinese Canadians served, making them the largest ethnic group to serve the Canadian military. On returning home from war, many Chinese Canadians felt they had proven their loyalty and allegiance to Canada. Many in the community felt they had achieved their goal through the contributions to the war effort and gained the respect they had deserved for years. This new-found respect ultimately led to the provision of full rights of citizenship to Chinese Canadians with the repealing of the exclusion act by Canada's parliament in 1947.

Under the guidance of Howe Lee and museum curator Larry Wong, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum proudly displays the stories of courage, sacrifice and patriotism of those who chose to fight for their country, Canada. I encourage everyone to visit the museum and learn about a widely unknown part of Canada's military history.

J. Horgan: As we prepare to watch the Sedin brothers play hockey this evening, I want to advise the House about two brother combos in my constituency, both championship families. The first family is the Hammond family, and brothers Mike and Gary, who were on the Junior B provincial championship Victoria Cougars this is past spring. Both young men I've watched grow from children into not just good hockey players but outstanding individuals.

The second family is the Carveth family, again on the Junior B championship Cougars. Karl Carveth finished with an MVP performance in the championship this spring held at Esquimalt's Archie Browning arena. Karl finished his junior career filling the net, just as he did when he started.

The last brother. Although it's unique to have brothers on the same team winning championships, in the case of the Carveths we have two brothers on two different championship teams. The second brother, Ryan — or Fuzzy, as I've been calling him since he was about eight years old — was an integral part of the midget triple-A Juan de Fuca Grizzlies, provincial champions who, as they did in every tournament they played in, rolled over the provincial competition in Kelowna this past spring.

I have to just remind those who are watching at home, and in particular the Carveth family, that when I first had the occasion to be with Fuzzy, he was an eight-year-old skinny kid standing at the doorway ready to go on the floor for a Canadian championship game. He said: "Coach, my legs are shaking too much. I don't think that I can even skate." I remember picking him up by the shoulder pads, putting him on the floor and pushing him out and saying: "You'll be fine."

Well, he was fine then, and he's certainly fine now. So would the House please join me and join the families in Langford, the Carveths and the Hammonds, and congratulate B.C. champions in Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

S. Hawkins: Today I want to share with you a story about a friendship which developed into an award-winning love affair — a story I heard last Thursday night in Kelowna.

It started about a year ago when a group of young people vandalized a seniors' residence in Kelowna. The seniors of Fernbrae Manor were understandably quite upset at this frightening and senseless act and decided to do something unique. They sent a letter to local schools in the area to appeal to the kids and help them to understand the consequences of such an act as vandalism in an effort to help them with ideas in how to prevent it from happening again.

They got only one response, but it was the best one they could have asked for. The students from Quigley Elementary School wanted to hear and learn from the seniors. A beautiful, loving friendship blossomed over the past year.

The students came to Fernbrae Manor, and they read books and played music and did fun activities with the seniors. They developed a mutually beneficial friendship. It proved so successful for both the kids and the seniors that both groups decided to adopt each other and make more of a long-term commitment. The plan is to continue this relationship with a new class partnering with Fernbrae Manor each year.

Last Thursday Quigley Elementary School and the seniors of Fernbrae Manor were honoured at the an-

nual Kelowna civic awards. They received the Anita Tozer memorial award, an award given in recognition of outstanding community service. The love and care both groups shared for each other was very much evident.

The kids of Quigley Elementary want to encourage other schools to do the same, and I see students in the gallery. Those kids learned the lesson of caring, kindness and mutual respect from our seniors. What a great lesson to pass on. I want this House to honour those students and those seniors for setting such a great example for all of us.

C. Trevena: Recently I hosted a meeting for women in business in Campbell River. We did the usual round of introductions and expectations. I think a number of the participants were uncertain what they would get out of the afternoon discussion.

I'd like to give the House a flavour of the broad cross-section of women who attended. We had one who runs a multimedia business; one in her late 60s who started a catering company. Another publishes a news and advertising flyer. One runs a vacation rental business. One works in the aquaculture industry. One's a realtor.

As the afternoon moved on and debate evolved, some common themes emerged. I wanted to share these with the House. One was child care. This was a disparate and non-partisan group that quickly discovered this common concern. One woman was able to juggle care because she works from home and her husband works weekends. Another spoke of a number of women at her workplace sharing one child care space. Another talked of the involvement that businesses could have in providing child care for their workers.

Waiting lists for child care and after-school care in Campbell River are long, as they are in other communities, and these women connected the dots between the lack of access to child care and economic problems. Women simply couldn't go to work because of a lack of child care.

The other theme which emerged was particularly troubling in the 21st century. It's a theme I've heard from women elsewhere. It is the financial, both access to financing and the value placed on women's work. Women at the table, these businesswomen, told me how there is still an expectation that they need to have a man, their husband, cosign a loan.

Women speak knowingly of undervaluing their own work, charging less than a man would because it's what they believe will be accepted. This is despite the fact that women own and operate 35 percent of small businesses in B.C.

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to be the seventh…. I don't know if you noticed that while this was going on over the last ten minutes, there was all kinds of gossip because people noticed that the formerly hon. Lois Boone entered the room. Lois Boone — who could, of course, sit down here with us — is upstairs there with her husband Fred. I want everybody to make her welcome.

RESPONSE OF PREMIER TO
MLA QUESTIONS ON ACTIONS
OF FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER

H. Lali: Last November I wrote to the Premier asking important questions regarding his former Deputy Minister of Finance and lobbyists connected to the B.C. Liberal Party. This serious situation brings into question the relationship between Mr. Paul Taylor, the Premier's handpicked former Deputy Minister of Finance, and principals at Pilothouse.

A very similar pattern is before the courts right now, so I would have thought that the Premier would have been extra cautious. But the Premier dismissed my concerns and waited until the story ran in the Globe and Mail to investigate the very questions I brought to his attention five months earlier.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why did the Premier and his deputy not immediately investigate this serious situation?

Hon. C. Taylor: Ten days before the Globe and Mail article did appear, the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier were made aware of this particular e-mail. Immediately, the deputy minister did a review, found nothing wrong, but with extra caution decided to go to an outside firm, KPMG, and asked them to do a full review of the situation. When that review is completed, it will be made available after it's been checked for FOI issues.

H. Lali: Over five months went by between the time when I first raised these questions and the time when Jessica McDonald started her internal investigation into the relationship between the Premier's pal Mr. Taylor and Pilothouse.

Again to the Minister of Finance: during that time did the Premier's office have any communication with Mr. Taylor regarding his relationship with Pilothouse or with the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, ten days before the Globe and Mail article was when the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier received a copy of this e-mail and the information that was included, and it led to the review which is now being conducted.

H. Lali: I just want the minister to put on the record again…. When I first wrote to the Premier, he hadn't even bothered to actually look into my questions. He brushed them off, actually. Since then, the Premier's deputy has conducted, as the minister says, an internal investigation. So it would seem like the government could now provide the answers.

Again to the Finance Minister — my question is simple: will the government release the results of the McDonald investigation as well?

Hon. C. Taylor: The review is now being done by KPMG. As soon as it's completed — and obviously all of us would like it to be sooner rather than later — and goes through the FOI process, all of this information will be available in public.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR KPMG
INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIONS
OF FORMER FINANCE DEPUTY MINISTER

L. Krog: Yesterday we learned for the first time that the government has asked a firm with ties to the B.C. Liberal Party to investigate the dealings of the former Deputy Minister of Finance, now the chair of ICBC, Paul Taylor.

My question to the Minister of Finance is very simple. Will the minister release the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation?

Hon. C. Taylor: When this review is completed — and, again, we do hope that it will be fairly soon — we will release all of the information, including the terms of reference.

L. Krog: Glen Ringdal, the vice-president of government relations for the New Car Dealers, told the Globe and Mail that he and Pilothouse principals lobbied Paul Taylor and Finance officials. However, this was never registered with the lobbyist registry.

My question to the Minister of Finance — very simple once again: do the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation include reviewing possible offences under the Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a serious situation, and that's why we're doing a review. That is also why in fact a reputable firm like KPMG has been asked to come in as an independent outside party to look it. They have the broad authority to look at all the issues that this e-mail raises.

B. Ralston: I suggest it's not good enough to say that the terms of reference will be revealed later on. Without knowing the terms of reference of the KPMG study right now, how can British Columbians be confident that this investigation will be broad enough to get at the truth?

Pilothouse was a New Car Dealers lobbyist while Mr. Taylor was deputy to Gary Collins at Finance. Perhaps KPMG has been asked to investigate all of Pilothouse's lobbying activities and Mr. Taylor's involvement within the Ministry of Finance.

The New Car Dealers have interests that involve ICBC. Perhaps KPMG has been asked to investigate lobbying activities at ICBC.

Will the minister table in this House the terms of reference for the KPMG investigation so British Columbians can be confident that this investigation isn't part of a cover-up?

Hon. C. Taylor: The entire point of having a third party that is reputable conduct this investigation is because their reputation, as well as government's reputation, is on the line that this be done properly. The proof will be that all of the information, after it's gone through FOI, will be released.

B. Ralston: Well, all we know at this point is that KPMG is investigating. If the minister won't tell us at this point what the terms of reference are, perhaps she can tell us which branch of KPMG is doing the investigations. Maybe it's the forensics investigation branch, which looks into allegations of fraud and misconduct. On their website they promise: "Our investigations service can help you (1) get control of a situation that may appear to be out of control and (2) find a way to limit damage." [Laughter.]

Can the minister tell me which arm of KPMG is conducting the investigation into Mr. Taylor's dealings with Pilothouse?

Hon. C. Taylor: I think it's unfortunate that the members opposite think this is funny. It's not funny. We're not laughing, and we're not making fun of the company that has been chosen, KPMG, which has an incredible reputation in this community and elsewhere. We have asked this firm to do a full review of all the implications that are contained in that e-mail.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I can assure the minister that we take this very seriously. What we want to know and want the minister to tell this House is: what justification can she give for not tabling or not releasing those terms of reference today?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will just simply repeat this as many times as it takes. This is an important issue. It came to the attention of the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier ten days before the Globe and Mail article.

The Deputy Minister to the Premier looked at this and found no reason to have concern about the issue but thought that for the interest of all British Columbians it would be of benefit to have a third party — an independent party, a reputable firm — conduct an

investigation as well. This firm has been asked to look at all of the broad implications of this e-mail.

When the review comes forward after it's gone through FOI, that plus all of the supporting materials you had mentioned — for instance, the terms of reference, if there are terms of reference — will be available to the government.

M. Farnworth: This is serious, and we will ask the question again. Why will the minister not release the terms of reference? The public deserves to know. If they're so concerned about openness and transparency, then release those terms of reference today.

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Speaker, all of the relevant information will be made available after it's gone through the FOI process, as soon as the review is complete.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, based on previous examples, after going through the Liberal FOI process, this shouldn't be a very engaging read. That's what we're worried about here today. Again, the scope of the terms of reference is very important. Will the minister table those in the House today?

Hon. C. Taylor: All of the terms of reference and information that come from this review, which is being conducted by an outside independent party, will be released once it's been through the FOI process.

R. Fleming: Well, I'm not sure what the government is afraid of now, because they're saying that they take this matter very seriously and that they don't want to deceive the public. Can they tell us: do the terms of reference in fact exist? Maybe that's the question that we can ask now. The minister has been asked over and over again to table the terms of reference for KPMG. Will she do it today, and will she confirm that KPMG has the terms of reference?

Hon. C. Taylor: The people of British Columbia elected us to do the business of this province. Anyone who is listening to the same question being asked over and over again, and to the same answer being given over and over again, must be thinking: aren't there some other issues that really have to be addressed in question period?

I will say that ten days before the Globe and Mail article appeared, the Premier and the Deputy Minister to the Premier received this e-mail. The Deputy Minister to the Premier did a review and found nothing incorrect, but to be extra sure called in an outside firm — a reputable firm, KPMG — and asked them to do a broad review of the implications of this e-mail.

When that review is completed, then it will be released along with the requirement for any information on terms of reference or instructions to KPMG as soon as it has been through the FOI process.

M. Karagianis: Well, I can assure the minister that we in fact do have some very important other questions to ask.

Yesterday the Attorney General stood here in the House and professed profound knowledge of the lobbyist registry act. But it turns out he was wrong again. The Privacy Commissioner's office later confirmed that they had no authority and that there was no authority in the legislation to investigate Ken Dobell or move forward with charges on that.

Today we've learned that the Attorney General has asked the commissioner to launch a fact-finding review into Mr. Dobell's lobbyist activities. We also learned that the Attorney General asked Mr. Dobell's permission to do the investigation.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he commit today to table the review, unsevered, in this House as soon as it's finished? Or will he have to ask for Mr. Dobell's permission to do that as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: To correct the member opposite, I did not ask Mr. Dobell to take part in the process. I would appreciate if the member opposite could get her facts right and do some research.

Hon. W. Oppal: I know that research is a nasty word across the way, but I'll set the record straight. We had a conversation with the Privacy Commissioner, and I've been informed by the registrar that he will conduct a fact-finding review pursuant to his obligations under the act — that he's prepared to do that. He also advised me that he contacted Mr. Dobell, and Mr. Dobell is prepared to cooperate with him.

M. Karagianis: My question was actually whether or not the Attorney General would commit today to table the fact-finding report when it's finished, unsevered, in this House. Or will he just continue to protect the Premier's friends?

Hon. W. Oppal: The last time I looked, the Privacy Commissioner was an officer of the Legislature.

H. Bains: The budget for the Vancouver Convention Centre boondoggle under the direction of Mr. Ken Dobell has skyrocketed — using the minister's own accounting system — to the range of over $800 million. Last Friday the government quietly shuffled Mr. Dobell out of the position as chair of the project.

Can the minister confirm that Ken Dobell will be removed from the 2010 Legacies Now board, a position that Mr. Dobell held by virtue of chairing the board of the Trade and Convention Centre? If not, why not?

Hon. S. Hagen: What the NDP sees as a project that they don't like, we see as a project that we like. We think that it's a world-class project. We think it's a project that is going to draw hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity into this province. We see it as a project where there are 7,000 working people on that site right through the duration. We see it as a project that's going to generate 6,000 new jobs in this province.

You know, the NDP can dislike this project all they want, but the fact is that it's going to be completed. It's going to draw hundreds of millions of dollars into this province, and it's going to be a success.

H. Bains: I think it is Groundhog Day, because when this minister stands up, it means no answer for six more weeks.

H. Bains: The convention centre is already double the cost that was promised by this government — a promise made by this minister, the minister before him, the minister before him and the Premier. Can the minister tell us today: when will he stop protecting the friends of the Premier, Mr. Dobell, and come to the aid of the taxpayers and turf Mr. Dobell?

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Dobell has had a long and distinguished career in the public service of this province. You know, when I hear these speculations and allegations, they're totally inappropriate — certainly until the facts are known.

I think that any further attempts at character assassination of this public servant or any other public servant are not only a disgrace to this House but also a disgrace to every public servant who works for this province.

C. Evans: Members on this side might be kind of unhappy to learn that I kind of like it when the Minister of Tourism gets up and says that we spend money to make jobs and help business. It wasn't always that way, hon. Speaker.

In 2002 the government announced that it was ending funding for job creation and what it used to call subsidies to business. In rural B.C. where I live, this meant an ending of the funding for the program of Buy B.C., which was the branding program that had helped to identify B.C. food in the marketplace. The Buy B.C. program had cost the government two million bucks a year. According to the Investment Agriculture Foundation, it had made 1,900 new jobs in rural British Columbia.

Now we've just spent a whole week listening to the minister tell us that his $400 million cost overrun is justified because it makes jobs and it's good for business. Let's assume for a minute that we accept his argument. Investment Agriculture says that Buy B.C., too, made jobs and was good for business. With his cost overrun alone at the convention centre, we could have run Buy B.C. for 200 years, making jobs…

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the policies appear to have turned around and we spend money to encourage business, will she restore funding to the highly successful Buy B.C. branding program for rural B.C.? Or does the new policy of assisting business and making jobs only apply to the town in which she and the Premier happen to live?

Hon. C. Taylor: I can't believe that I've been given this opportunity to talk about our relationship with the economy, what we've done for the economy, what we believe….

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, when the B.C. Liberals came into government, we were in a situation with the

economy in this province that was really negative. We had a high corporate tax rate — 16.5 percent. We had the highest marginal tax rate for personal income tax in the '90s of any place in Canada. We were losing people, we were losing businesses, and unfortunately, we lost head offices that will never come back.

As a result of the turnaround which this government has brought by reducing the corporate tax rate from 16½ percent to 12 percent, by increasing the threshold for small business owners from $200,000, first of all, to $300,000 and then to $400,000, we have made it better for small business to work in B.C.

Hon. C. Taylor: As a result, what we do every single year — and I will include the suggestion from the member opposite — is consider every option that we have going forward, looking at ways to help business in B.C. and help the economy.

C. Wyse: Near Alexis Creek last Saturday a 16-year-old girl was shot through the shoulder and the lungs. The nearest ambulance station, Alexis Creek, happened to be closed.

Once more, so everyone understands the situation, the Alexis Creek paramedic station is scheduled to be closed 15 days in the month of April. It requires more than an hour added travel time to go from Williams Lake to provide service to this woman who required that care.

The minister has been aware of the effect of the closures upon the Chilcotin for at least two years since I've been here. My question to the minister: today will he confirm for the people of the Chilcotin that the Alexis Creek station and the Anahim Lake station will now be open on a regular basis to provide services to those residents of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ambulance service is extremely important to this government. We place the highest priority on having quality ambulance service and timely ambulance service across the province. I'm pleased to note that response times in both rural and urban areas have been good. It can be a challenge in some rural, remote locations like Alexis Creek at times, but even in those locations we have seen improved response times.

In terms of the ongoing challenge of out-of-service hours in the Alexis Creek ambulance station, I do first of all want to acknowledge that as a rural and remote station it does have challenges at times securing paramedics to provide service.

We have made progress in that regard. I want to note, for example, comparing September of 2001 with September of 2006…. In 2001, 324 hours out of service at Alexis Creek. That was 45 percent of the time. In 2006 it had been improved to 121 hours, or 17 percent of the time.

C. Wyse: No more time for rhetoric; no more time for excuses. This accident took place on first nations reserve. The chiefs of the Tsilhqot'in National Government have written requesting and bringing their concerns to the minister's attention.

Once more I request to the minister: when will the people of Chilcotin be provided with the needed ambulance care services so they do not have to wait for hours for additional service to be provided for them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We place the highest priority on ambulance service not only in the Chilcotin but right across British Columbia. That is why we have seen over the past five years the budget for the Ambulance Service move from $176 million to $276 million. We've seen the number of ambulances in the province move from 463 to 503. That's why we see hundreds more ambulance paramedics in this province than there have ever been before. We have a record number of ambulances, stations and paramedics in this province — more than ever before in the history of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: …I'd be happy to share this list with the member. If you look at virtually any interior rural B.C. community, you will see substantial improvements approximating 20 to 25 percent improvement in ambulance service across this province.

C. Trevena: The impacts of cuts to child care are starting to be felt by communities around the province. Ten neighbourhood resource centres in Vancouver alone are shutting, and the staff is going to drop from 11 to four. The provincial service, west coast, can't backfill, because it's lost all of its $800,000 funding.

I would like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare to explain how one site operating with four staff can assist the more than 68,000 children and families in Vancouver dependent upon it.

Hon. L. Reid: I am more than happy to take this opportunity to talk about the child care gains in British

Columbia, of which there are many. The budget in British Columbia for child care in this previous year is $203 million. I am happy to tell this House that the spending will likely exceed $260 million in this coming year.

This government has placed an incredible priority on children who require specialized supports, on families who require subsidy and on spaces in British Columbia. That vision is clear. We are going forward. We are delivering the best possible child care programs to the province of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege with regard to comments made by the Attorney General today in this House.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move four motions relating to the charging of select standing committees and special committees. I've taken the liberty of providing my friend the Opposition House Leader with copies of the motions.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE PERSONAL INFORMATION
PROTECTION ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading debate on Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued estimates on the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Bill 18 proposes amendments to five forest statutes that will enable this government to achieve a number of throne speech commitments. Those commitments focused on forest stewardship, addressing interface fire risk and encouraging the better utilization of beetle-kill timber.

The bill delivers on this government's ongoing work to revitalize and strengthen the forest sector through opening up new opportunities through streamlining and regulatory reform. Amendments to this bill provide important advances in government's ability to meet its goal of sustainable environmental management and strengthen government's ability to take action in cases where individuals have caused damage to the environment that adversely affects an ecosystem.

We already prohibit damage to the environment through the Forest and Range Practices Act. We have hundreds of Forests officials whose job it is to enforce this act. The proposed amendment gives our staff the ability to enforce these environmental protection rules against any person doing any unauthorized activity that adversely harms an ecosystem.

Those who cause adverse damage to an ecosystem face penalties of up to $100,000 and also may face prosecution in the criminal courts, which carries a maximum fine of up to $100,000, up to one year in jail or both. We hope that this provision will be a deterrent to those individuals who damage the environment through mud-bogging or recklessly driving ATVs through sensitive alpine terrain or rangelands.

The bill also supports stewardship and sustainability objectives by enabling more timely and responsive

adjustments to the allowable annual cuts when the area of a tree farm licence or timber supply area changes. It builds on government's ability to recover costs and gain compensation for costs and damages from person-caused fires. The amendment enables government to recover costs when a fire caused by a person destroys recently reforested areas. This provision will help re-establish those plantations damaged by wildfire.

This bill provides important improvements to enable communities to continue to work on reducing the risk of urban interface fires. Amendments to the Forest Act made changes to the forest licence to cut. Last year we gave local governments the ability to get forestry licence to cut to reduce the fuel loading in forests around the communities' homes. That was restricted to activities in commercial or merchantable timber.

These amendments clarify that non-commercial fuels may also be removed and disposed of. This amendment provides clarity to communities that are taking interface fire risks seriously and are conducting treatments such as thinning, pruning, brushing and prescribed burns.

Bill 18 supports improvements in our relationship with first nations. It will allow the ministry to adjust the volume or area in a number of licences directly awarded to first nations. It also streamlines a process of awarding community forest agreements and various new licences to first nations once an enabling agreement has been met. First nations will have quicker access to timber, which is important to deal with the mountain pine beetle–attacked timber.

These changes strengthen the new relationship that our government is building with first nations. An amendment to the Forest Act strengthens government's ability to prevent an unjustifiable infringement of potential aboriginal rights or title in forest activities.

The new provisions enable government to stop forest activities from being conducted by timber sale licence holders, an ability we have now for other forms of forest tenure. Changes are being made to the Forest Act to enable simpler and more effective administration. Woodlot licence holders will be able to own processing facilities without having to apply to the ministry. Operators will be able to respond and pursue value-added market opportunities when they arise.

A second amendment allows woodlot licence holders to restart their cut control period so that they can adjust the harvesting plans to take advantage of market trends and conditions. These amendments emphasize government's commitment to a diversified forest sector and to creating more opportunities for small tenure holders, including woodlots and community forests.

Recovering as much economic value as possible from beetle timber remains a ministry focus. To that end, we're creating new measures to facilitate the harvest of mountain pine beetle timber. A new section allows us to postpone the harvest of healthy green timber within a cutting permit. This means companies can focus on beetle wood without worrying that their green timber permits will expire in the interim.

We're also making it more economically feasible for operators to harvest salvage-type timber, including beetle wood, that isn't being cut by major licensees. Amendments will increase the maximum volume that can be harvested in these situations.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, these proposed amendments allow government to continue to protect and manage B.C.'s most important resource on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's opening comments, because some of the comments in there are questions that I will have during the next phase of the debate on this bill.

I find this an interesting process. This is my third opportunity to table quite a substantive set of forestry amendments. When a bill is tabled in the House, the bill comes — for those who don't have a life and listen to Hansard or read it later on — to all of us as a two-sided document. On the left-hand page are the explanatory notes. On the right-hand page is the actual change in legislation.

For illustration purposes, section 27 of this bill amends section 47.8 of the Forest Act, and it just simply reads: "Section 47.8 (c) is amended by adding 'or (3)' after 'section 47.6 (2)'." That one little clause of simply adding "or" after a section in the explanatory notes says that this amendment allows the minister to make available for disposition to a person, other than the holder of a forestry licence to cut, the portion of Crown timber on Crown land that is subject to a forestry licence to cut related to B.C. timber sales and that was reduced under the Forestry Revitalization Act or in respect of which an attribution was made by order of the minister under that act. So an "or" becomes a fairly substantive change in the minister's ability to address the allocation of timber under a licence.

It's one of the things I find interesting about how the government puts out press releases. This is not partisan. I think it's just how governments do their business. They choose to emphasize explicit aspects of the bill and de-emphasize others. In this case, as I've spent time trying to understand this bill, there are significant changes in this bill not emphasized by government that I want to explore for a few minutes here. But there are also aspects of the bill that have been emphasized by government that really do not address issues that are on the land base or don't address adequately the issues that they're supposed to address.

The government's press release actually targets one thing: "Mud-bogging, Interface Fires Targeted in Bill." The whole front end of the press release is that it's about mud-bogging and, as the minister indicated, strengthening government's ability to deal with people who damage our forests or range resources.

What the bill actually does is simply give the compliance enforcement under the Ministry of Forests and Range the ability to give penalties to non–licence holders or people who are not authorized to be on the land base under Ministry of Forests regulations but who are out there and who do damage.

That's a good thing. It's a good thing that we have that ability to do that, because sometimes these things fall through the cracks. I know range holders, for example, who get tired of mud-boggers. If a range holder is out on a range with an ATV and happens to tear up his property, he gets all kinds of trouble from the Ministry of Forests and Range or Ministry of Environment compliance folks. If an individual is out there running around with an ATV and creates all kinds of damage, there is a gap in the legislation that makes it difficult to get to those people.

The difficulty I have with this is, again, that it's a change in legislation that's much touted as a major significant shift, and we're going to be able to get all these mud-boggers. But if you look at the Ministry of Forests and Range service plan, the compliance and enforcement budget and personnel are flatlined. So there are no additional resources put to this, and this is a significant issue. I'm not sure — and I'll ask in questioning of the act — whether or not there actually would be additional training around this, whether or not there will be additional opportunities for compliance and enforcement officers to be out on the ground around this.

The issue on the land base is that we don't have enough eyes and ears. Wherever I go around the province I hear that. We don't have enough eyes and ears on the ground just now as it is. Adding an additional burden to these folks without the resources simply means that while we may have the legislation, we may not have the authority to do anything about it because we don't have the people out there to catch these individuals.

The other thing is, as the minister indicated, that it enables local government to reduce the threat of interface wildfires to their communities through changes to the forest licence to cut. As the minister well knows, on March 31 of last year UBCM and the strategic wildfire prevention initiative gave notice to the government that there were significant hindrances to local governments conducting their interface plans on the ground.

Those hindrances were, for example, the right to work on lands not within their jurisdiction, legal responsibilities assumed by working on those lands that are not in your jurisdiction — for example, Crown lands and in some cases private or first nations lands — the allocation of local tax dollars for work outside of a local jurisdiction and, in the case of regional districts, the inability to collect that.

There are also issues about stumpage. There are issues about whether or not it's appropriate for local governments to pick up the responsibilities associated with what was a Crown obligation to that point. Again, there are some changes in here that will assist local governments, but the act doesn't go far enough. It doesn't address all of the issues being addressed to the ministry.

In fact, the disappointment I have in this act — it is a theme that I would suggest permeates my review of the act — is that it simply doesn't go far enough. There are a number of asks of the government around legislation that are not addressed in this act, that are not addressed in these amendments.

In 2003, when the government made the sweeping changes that it made to the Forest Act, brought in a new results-based code and a new Wildfire Act — all of the things they've done in terms of legislation since 2003…. There has been a lot of collateral damage as a result of that. I think that happens whenever any government brings in legislation, because you can't think through all of the computations and permutations and impacts of the legislation at the time. However, we've had four years, and in those four years we've had enough substantive time to understand what the implications of those Forest Act changes are and to know that we needed more in this act than what's in it.

For example, there's nothing in this act that restores the social contract. There's nothing in this act that once again makes sure that communities benefit from our public resources. In 2003 appurtenancy was cut. The mill closure review was taken away. That's not addressed in here.

I know that there are a number of people around the province, including members of large corporations, who have said that there was always an explicit understanding with government that while the large corporate entities got what they needed through those Forest Act changes, the government would take care of the communities and the workers affected by that. This act doesn't address those issues.

There is significant issue on the land base, and we're canvassing this in estimates just now, around tenure and around the formation of these — the word of the session — oligopolies and monopolies. Again, this act doesn't redress that, although there is one section of the act I must say I'm happy to see in there.

That's a section in the act that once again restores to the minister the ability to decide on some other economic drivers for the allocation of timber rights. I'm looking forward to exploring that and to seeing what's on the minister's mind and what his staff are saying we need to do to direct that fibre to grow our value-added business or independent business and so on. But that's redressing one aspect of the collateral damage that occurred from 2003.

One other major concern I have is that the government has been given substantive advice about the Forest and Range Practices Act, the so-called results-based code. That advice comes from the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. It comes from the environmental groups. It comes from community groups. The Horsefly Ratepayers Association in my riding has given all kinds of advice to government around that results-based code and what does not work for them.

In particular, the Forest Practices Board gave a substantive report to the government suggesting changes that needed to be made. In fact, the minister's own advisory group suggested to the government and to the minister directly that some values needed to be added to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The Forest and Range Practices Act explicitly states values that must be in what are called forest stewardship plans. But what has happened as a result of them being explicitly stated is that the forest stewardship

plans have become legal documents that are minimum-expectations documents, so they only meet the minimum objectives. In other words, they become what we would say are butt-covering exercises as opposed to forest stewardship exercises.

They become an exercise in covering legal liability as opposed to forest stewardship. That's the general buzz that's out in the forest sector. The Forest Practices Board has pointed out that they are minimalist plans. As a result, within the Forest and Range Practices Act there is a section that basically restricts what licensees have put in as values to adhere to.

The minister's own advisory group recommended to the minister, for example — this is the minister's Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council — the need for an objective set by government and a change to the Forest and Range Practices Act in section 149, an objective for forest worker safety.

As everyone in this House knows, forest worker safety is an issue that we have addressed on many occasions. We've had a fortunate year and a bit where those numbers have been reduced. However, one of the concerns that people have is that because it's not an explicit objective under the Forest and Range Practices Act, then we can let that slip again. That was recommended to the minister. That doesn't find its way into this amendment act.

There's another area of concern. Again, it's within the area of interface fire. While this act does address some issues around interface fire, it doesn't address fire itself as a value under the results-based code. Not only was the minister advised by staff to put fire in as a legal objective, but the Forest Practices Board gave substantive advice to the government in a document about the risk of fire on the land base and interface, and it needed to be addressed. The fact that we're not adding fire as a value to forest range practices, I think, is an oversight.

There's another significant oversight, however. As a result of the changes that occurred in 2003, the ministry attempted to shift all aspects of inventory and forest health to the major licensees and to licensees in general. Under a program called "defined forest area management," or DFAM, they tried to make sure that the licensees picked up all of the forest health initiatives and picked up inventory.

The quid pro quo for the licensees was that they could come back to the ministry and say: "Because we're doing such a good job on the land base, we deserve an uplift in our annual allowable cut." Well, that program has failed, and it has failed abysmally. There are a few areas where people did attempt to do it, but the majority of licensees did not pick up this responsibility.

Again, the minister was counselled in the run-up to this legislative session that that shift in obligation to the licensees and its failure created a gap in our forestry legislation. A recommendation was made to the minister to add a new section to the Forest and Range Practices Act explicitly to address forest health issues in forest stewardship plans.

That hasn't been done in this act, and again that is an unfortunate oversight because, as anybody who has been awake for the last couple of years knows, we have a significant forest health issue. The mountain pine beetle is only the leading edge of that, and the failure to add that value into this act is problematic.

There are some sections of the act that I'm unsure as to whether or not we can achieve that objective a different way, and I look forward to the committee stage to see if that's possible, but the general sense is that this act did not go far enough, particularly in those areas.

One area that is very curious to me — the minister mentioned it in his speech, and we're going to have to explore it — is the implications of the change in annual allowable cut determination. I think I understand what the ministry is trying to do in this — because we've done takebacks, reapportionments and all kinds of things on the land base. The normal practice would be for the chief forester in an annual allowable cut review to do a full review, and that takes time. It takes a year, a year and a half sometimes, to do that.

There needs to be a faster way of doing the determination, but there are huge implications about how an annual allowable cut is determined. It has financial and stewardship implications, and it also has social and community implications. That change in annual allowable cut determination permeates this act, and I'll be very curious in committee stage as to what the implications are of that.

Another area is redressing, I think, some oversight in the 2003 forestry legislative changes. There are significant changes here to the role of the district manager. There is more authority given to the district manager — in the case, as the minister pointed out, of first nations — to protect first nations rights and for the issuance of community forests.

In particular — I know I've had a lot of questions addressed to me around this — is the district manager's ability to cancel cutting permits or road permits. In order to get to a cutting permit or a road permit, a lot of work has to be done to get up to that point. The planning work has to be done — block layouts and long-term planning. There are significant costs associ-

There is some concern out there that giving the district manager the ability to cancel or reject a cutting permit or a road permit at that stage means that the companies or the licensees absorb a lot of costs and that the district manager holds a big axe. The district manager can cut them off at the point that they're going to action and do that operation.

It's interesting that that's not part of the government's press release, but it is a significant part of this act, and we need to explore it. We also need to explore what that derivative authority is for the district managers. If the district manager is given authority to make decisions independent of the minister — that delegated authority — on substantive issues like protecting first nations rights in this case, like issuing community forest licences and cancelling cutting permits and road permits….

Under the results-based code, part of the big challenge we have is trying to understand what professional reliance is and what the professional liability is. I look forward to exploring that with the minister and his staff, because these district managers not only gain that delegated authority, but they also potentially gain the liability that comes associated with that.

The liability issue, as the minister and his staff well know, is a significant issue within the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, which governs the profession and of which the district managers are members. That area, again…. It's one or two paragraphs in this large act, but it is a substantive change.

Another area that begs further exploration is the requirements for management plans for tree farm licences. Again, it's one of those sections that have little changes in wording. Management plans and tree farm licences are a part of the ongoing planning for what are called area-based tenures, where a licensee has control over a certain area and has a requirement to put in an annual report and to edit and create their management plan.

When tenure changes, it looks like in this act, the management plan process changes as well. The minister has some authority for approval. It seems to be removing the chief forester. Again, I am not clear on what the implications of that are, and I look forward to exploring that. It's another area that does require some significant exploration.

The final comment I'll make…. I'm not sure if this is going to happen now or later on, but I know that the minister was counselled by his own staff. I know that the Forest Practices Board gave a report on the fact that we need a resource road act. This bill we have in front of us does not address the issue of what's happening on forest roads.

It's becoming a very significant issue. I had the luxury, when I worked in the industry, of working in both B.C. and Alberta. In Alberta, because of years of experience with the oil and gas industry, the forest industry and the oil and gas industry had found a way to manage their access to the land base through these resource roads. They worked in very close cooperation.

Unfortunately, as the Forest Practices Board reported out in December 2005, we don't have that here and we need to fix it. According to their own documentation, there are currently between 400,000 and 550,000 kilometres of resource roads in British Columbia. By comparison, the provincial highway system covers only 45,000 kilometres. So we have a set of roads out there that is ten times greater than our provincial highway system, that isn't governed by a unified act and isn't governed by unified regulations.

The Forest Practices Board recommended that we needed a set of laws and that the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry of Agriculture needed to address this issue as quickly as possible. Well, that was December 7, 2005. We're now in April 2007.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who think that if we don't address this issue, not only are we creating greater conflict, particularly as we grow the oil and gas industry — greater conflict potential — greater animosity between resource groups that are out there using the land base, but it also is a safety issue. It's a forest stewardship issue. As our land base shifts and as we're working in droughts, it is a fire safety issue.

I won't be able to ask those questions because it's not in the act, but it is an area where I want it on the record that we would support a forest resource roads act coming forward very quickly to address this issue. We would support it coming forward with substantive changes to the regulations and legislation that already exist, and we would hope that it would be governed by an independent body that would make sure that our forest resource roads are managed properly, safely and with stewardship and public safety in mind.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Forests and Range closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: When I hear the member three times in his remarks say that I've been counselled by my staff on certain issues, I want to run back and see if my office is bugged. I've never seen the member opposite at any of the briefings I've had with my ministry, so I don't know how he can determine what was said in a meeting other than that. It's just a bit of humour for me as much as anything.

I did actually have a bit of a chuckle as the member was describing the word "or" in his remarks with regards to the description on the pages beside. Welcome, to the member, to drafting legislation. It is an interesting breed of people that are authors of legislation, and they are authors. They are a group of people that actually do this. They write this stuff, they write legislation, and then they can explain to you how this connects to a law and how that law connects to another law and how a Charter challenge can be affected in another area with regards to constitutional stuff and everything else. They do a pretty good job.

Before a bill ever gets here, of course, it gets drafted, it goes through committees, and it goes

through a legislative review. It comes through the minister. You've got to ask questions about it and go through it before it gets to the House. So it's a very interesting bit of work, and it's a lot of work for the individuals who do the work. The drafters have been around government, some of them…. I think some of them have probably been here for 30 years. They are a group of people that do a pretty significant process for us in government when they draft legislation. It is interesting how the coining of a word in a piece of law can have an impact sometimes, and quite interesting.

The big thing about this for me, hon. Speaker, is that we're trying to do a number of things for communities, for interface fire, for those that want to destroy the land base through mud-bogging and allow some things that woodlot operators have asked to take place — those types of things. This is the type of bill that you actually don't spend hours in debate on at second reading. You spend more time probably at the committee stage of this, because quite frankly, it's one of those bills that covers a plethora of issues when it's an amendment act to a number of statutes and a number of sections, where usually your discussions and debates are around committee stage.

I have had a number of pieces of communication from different communities across British Columbia, particularly around the mud-bogging piece of this legislation and particularly in the Kootenays. B.C. Nature, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, have also written me with regards to that, thinking that it's well overdue and time to deal with that.

I do know that the member for East Kootenay, who lives in Cranbrook…. He was not available and wasn't able to be in the House today to have a discussion with regards to his opportunity on second reading. I'll hear from him, I'm sure, in committee. He did want to pass on his support with regards to this, because his constituents have been very, very vocal with him over a number of years. He has been an advocate with regards to trying to deal with this issue for some time.

I think that it's good, because we're going to do more to let communities do more with less red tape, so they can go after the interface fire and those sorts of things. We will have an interesting discussion, I'm sure, at committee stage of this bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING
(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the House is a member of my staff, Jillian Rousselle from the operations division of the ministry. I'd like to introduce her to the House. She'll be here for a little while.

B. Simpson: We closed off with the minister referencing a UBC report with respect to the value-added sector and some comments with respect to where fibre shortage came for them in the order of priorities. My question to the minister is: what was the date of that report? How was that report conducted? Is it available publicly?

Hon. R. Coleman: They were both UBC reports on the secondary wood sector. One was A Current Assessment of the Canadian Secondary Wood Sector in a Global Context, Cohen, Delong and Kozac, July 2005. The other one is The Canadian Secondary Wood Products Sector: Competitive Success Factors and Current Status, Delong, Cohen and Kozac, March 2005.

B. Simpson: I have difficulty with those reports in the context of what we're discussing just now because, as the minister should be well aware, the issue of the critical log shortage has been growing over the last little while. Did those reports at that time break out British Columbia's value-added sector as a separate entity so that we could look at that data separately?

Hon. R. Coleman: The one report was done on 618 respondents from firms across Canada. The B.C. Economic Forum and B.C. Wood both confirmed that these reports were reflective of the situation in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: When the Competition Council did its report, did it address the value-added sector in that report?

Hon. R. Coleman: It wasn't the focus of the Competition Council report. The Competition Council report

went everywhere from B.C.'s ten-year transition plan to timber pricing, position of the Competition Council on issues, mountain pine beetle action plan, rationalization, consolidation, reducing lumber costs. Some had to do with values and getting stuff out of values, but it didn't focus on the value-added sector.

B. Simpson: The reason I raised the question is because the value-added sector thought that was a gross oversight. If you look back at the language of the forest revitalization strategy, it was explicitly to grow the value-added sector, not to grow the dimension lumber sector. It actually makes explicit statements about the fact that previous tenure changes always seemed to default to the lowest common denominator, pulp and/or solid wood, and that the value-added sector kept getting shortchanged.

In the fall of 2005 estimates, the minister references a value-added strategy at that time. My recollection was that the minister indicated that the ministry or the provincial government was working on a value-added strategy. Do we have a value-added strategy in the works in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: The strategy has been ongoing. However, we are close to moving it up another level, which we should be in a position to deal with in the next few weeks. We've reached an agreement with B.C. Wood on that strategy, as well as with other producers on how the dollars to be applied there are basically now being finalized.

We should note, though, that FII has very much had an interest in the value-product mix. In providing funding to other organizations, FII has historically dedicated about a quarter of its available funds to the promotion of value-added products.

With respect to activities of the FII staff, about half of the relevant expenditures relate to primary products and half to value-added products. We've been building a very good relationship with B.C. Wood as we take this thing to try and move it to the next level.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear, before I go on to the next question, on the minister's answer there. Is there or is there not a definitive value-added strategy forthcoming for the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of groups, but the primary group we've been working with is B.C. Wood.

B. Simpson: Will the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association be involved in the strategy?

Hon. R. Coleman: Any company in B.C. can get access to the program through B.C. Wood. B.C. Wood is the organization that we've worked with on the strategy, because it represents a number of those companies in a market sense and has a good handle on the thing.

That organization seems to have the horsepower in order to basically deliver on some goals in cooperation with government. That's the organization that we spent most of the time with, with regards to strategy.

B. Simpson: I think it's important just to explore this a little bit, because the minister mentioned the individual, who is the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, as someone who appeared to be problematic. That was the discussion that the minister had in this House. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association and other associations felt that they were not engaged in the coastal recovery process, and that they were trying to fight their way into that process.

What will be the communications strategy in the invitation that will go out through B.C. Wood so that as many people will be engaged as possible and they won't find out by happenstance that something is either in the works or, as in the case of the work that Mr. Dobell did, already done? What would that communication strategy be, and what is the requirement of B.C. Wood or the government to do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's quite a bit of overlap between these organizations, and B.C. Wood would communicate that. Any independent remanner or value-added operator in British Columbia can contact B.C. Wood or the ministry about value-added. We're happy to share the information with them. When the strategy comes out — basically, the horsepower dollars; how it's going to be handled and where they can apply is put together — they'll all be made aware of it and how they can participate.

B. Simpson: I'll make sure that Mr. Cameron is apprised of that and looks for that.

The minister's comments around FII though, and I made mention of this before we recessed for lunch …. I'm being told by B.C. Wood and others that there are not substantive problems on the market side. There may be some innovation issues and so on, and it's nice to see the breakdown in FII. We'll look at some of that later on. But it's not the product side, and it's not the market side; it's the supply side.

Mr. Cameron, in the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association's submission to Mr. Dobell, states on behalf of his association: "The fact is that most of our recent problems have been created by our own governments. The result is that we face increased difficulty obtaining supply, we have less access to our biggest market" — that's through the softwood lumber agreement — "and we are considerably less agile." The

report goes on to say: "The problems of the independents can generally be categorized as supply, supply and supply."

The issue is of supply. In the forestry revitalization strategy it states as an explicit action that: "Policy changes designed to promote the freer flow of timber will provide B.C.'s value-added manufacturers with more access to timber. These policy changes include reallocation of tenure to market loggers and removing timber-processing restrictions. As well, the value-added sector will be able to bid on the increased volume of wood sold at auction through reallocation." We're going to get into the bid part when we get into B.C. Timber Sales.

My question to the minister is this: has the ministry ever done an evaluation of the impacts of the Forestry Revitalization Act and all of the changes that occurred there, with respect to both the fibre and log flow to the value-added sector? The government's own policies, as Mr. Cameron states, are in the way and creating the problems. Has that been evaluated in response to those concerns?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the fact is that there are four million cubic metres more out there for open bid than there was before the forestry revitalization plan. We'll obviously have those discussions about BCTS later. There's lots of wood in the interior of B.C., as the member knows. At the same time, I've talked to the value-added sector, who tell me that it's not about the log for a lot of them; it's about the relationship they build with the other manufacturers.

For instance, I was through a hardwood mill recently where they were taking out certain clear pieces so they could go to somebody and make a specific product out of it. They get more value for that, because they can sell it upstream to somebody who is making more of a product out of it. The person that finishes that doesn't want a raw log. They actually want something that's coming out of a primary operation.

Part of the value-added sector is the building of that relationship as well. We'll continue to do that, and we'll do that with B.C. Wood and those companies and people who want to work with us. We'll try and accomplish that. I think that Mr. Cameron's description of just those three words is disingenuous to a number of his members who have other issues in front of them.

B. Simpson: I take it that no evaluation was done then. In the case of the softwood lumber agreement…. The minister is correct. Some of these remanufacturers don't need logs; they need fibre from the primaries. I'm not sure if the minister is aware of how it used to work, because you went out, you bid for a sale on the logs in order to trade the logs for that fibre. Now under the softwood lumber agreement, many of those independents that did that, the remanufacturers in particular, had to give up those tenures in order to qualify for first-mill price. We've canvassed that already. There's a double whammy for those independents in particular, where they are in a restricted fibre market to begin with. They are also now not able to go and get a sale and hold a sale and trade logs for that fibre.

The minister talks about the increase and the uplift and so on, but the minister should also be aware that not all of that uplift volume is out, and we'll canvass that. Some are constrained in my area with six licences that are amounting to a hill of beans. Much of the fibre is necessary because of the falldown in the bush. We've got lots of waste in the bush, because it's harder and harder to get a sawlog. You may have a large volume there, but you have a very small and smaller usable volume.

The issue that I'm being told about by everybody is it's fibre, fibre, fibre or logs, logs logs. Here's another example: January 15, 2007. Is the minister aware of the shake and shingle industry coalition's concerns with respect to fibre? Has that been brought to his attention?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, they came to see me, actually. Their issue isn't around cedar. As the member knows, in B.C. there has been a high-grading of cedar for a long time, but the level and amount of cedar available has probably dropped a bit.

The member's own member stood in the House yesterday and brought up Hammond Cedar in his community with regards to saying that the issue was that there wasn't enough cedar for the mill because of the things that we had done. Interfor immediately came out and said that's absolutely not true.

They actually did a press release immediately after — it's in the local media in the member's riding — saying the reason was that they had a tough logging season, starting with the weather in November and right through the winter. They didn't get enough out this winter. On that particular case, if Hammond Cedar — because Interfor has some cedar — is having difficulties, obviously there'd be others.

The thing about the shake and shingle guys is that we talked about how we could work with them and work with the primaries to try to get that fibre to them. We committed to continue to work with them on that.

In addition to that, the other thing they brought to me was that they wanted to make sure that we would maintain…. Their biggest concern at the beginning of the meeting, quite frankly, was the comment in the Wright-Dumont report about the fact that cedar could ever be exported off Crown lands. I made it very clear to him that was one recommendation that under no condition would I consider — we would continue a complete ban, a restriction, of any cedar off Crown lands. That actually made them feel better, to be honest with you. That was their major concern coming into the meeting.

They also told me that they're experimenting with other woods to see if they can make shakes out that and treat them, and other types of fibre. They're recognizing that there may be a falldown in the amount of cedar over the next number of years that will have even more effect on their ability to continue in that

particular singular fibre basket as far as the product they're going to deliver.

B. Simpson: The minister has answered one question that I was going to ask, and that is their concern with respect to what may happen if the Wright-Dumont report is acted on with respect to cedar. I'm glad that the minister has communicated that to those folks.

Effectively, the information that I've been given and documentation on its experience on the ground is that that log supply issue still needs to be addressed. I want to look at that whole issue within the domain of B.C. Timber Sales. But there's one area of the revitalization strategy that I do need to canvass, and that's the issue of salvage operations.

The revitalization strategy explicitly stated that it would support small-scale salvage. As the minister is well aware, he and I have gone head to head on this issue in the press, particularly up in my neck of the woods in the central Cariboo forest region where small-scale salvage is hot, and in the Merritt region and Kamloops, and so on.

The forestry revitalization strategy stated that a salvage-based, non-replaceable forest licence, which will not require registration with B.C. Timber Sales and which will be awarded for longer terms than past licences, would in fact be conceptualized, put together and put out for bid. Were community salvage licences put together?

Hon. R. Coleman: One thing, a clarification before I move on to answer the next question. B.C. Wood does work with Mr. Cameron of the ILRA in the development of the value-added strategy, so if he doesn't know about it, then he's not paying attention on behalf of his own members. In fact, a member of the ILRA board, just so we're clear, also sits on the board of B.C. Wood, and B.C. Wood's board is made up of all sectors of the value-added industry, including the reman industry — just so we're clear on that. I think they're pretty well engaged.

The small-scale salvage issue has a number of dynamics to it, as the member knows. Salvage originally was to go get salvage, to basically take out some wood that wasn't going to be harvested, or whatever the case may be. It grew, particularly in the interior of B.C., as a result of some of the issues around mountain pine beetle.

I did make some changes as a minister about six months into my term — somewhere in there; I don't have the dates here handy — where I said that we're going to have to see if we have to ramp this thing back because we were being left with a certain amount of liability on the land by the people who were doing small-scale salvage. They were doing larger areas than they were allowed to do, so we sort of ramped it back.

At the same time as we did that, we started to create community salvage licences. We did do a non-replaceable forest licence salvage opportunity up in the interior. We have intermediate salvage, which is basically 20- to 5,000-cubic-metre competitive bids or sales now that are being piloted in six interior districts, so we can see how those work and if we can work those so people will bid on them and get competitive.

I saw something across my desk here, actually, when I was doing my reading in the last few days. One of the complaints now coming from the salvage industry is that they say it's not competitive for them anymore because we charge them $2 per cubic metre for silviculture and ecosystem restoration. They don't like that, because I guess they want everything for free and not have to be worried about the land base.

I'm not prepared to moderate that too much, because I really do think that part of it has to be in balance with the land base. I don't think those liabilities should either flow to the Crown by itself or to the licensee who actually owns the licence in a particular area.

We are trying to come up with some solutions to small-scale salvage forest licences to cut so that we can do a bit more. We do know that the demand has decreased. Part of that may be anecdotal, because I don't have any stats due to the saturated log-purchasing market in the last year or so. Even if they go salvage it, where are they going to sell it? There is so much of it out there, particularly in the interior.

That's the best answer I can give to the member's question. If he has other specific issues in and around it, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

B. Simpson: Quite frankly, I think the minister's comments about Mr. Cameron are completely inappropriate. The man is not here to defend himself, and I never suggested once that he was ignorant of anything. I asked a question as to whether or not his organization would be apprised. The minister didn't have the answer at the time, and when he did get the answer, all he had to say was, "Yes, that association is associated with B.C. Wood," and that would have been sufficient.

If this is the way the minister treats the president of a major association in this province — who he refuses to meet with and then has the audacity in this House, where he cannot defend himself against the minister's comments, to make those kinds of comments — I think that's inappropriate.

Onto the salvage issue. I asked an explicit question: do we have such a thing as a non-replaceable salvage licence, a community salvage licence? The minister referenced one in my area. Does that one actually exist, or was it withdrawn?

Hon. R. Coleman: So I can clarify the record, I only made the comment with regards to Mr. Cameron because at the time the member was quoting from the letter, and I thought he was quoting from the letter as part of his conversation.

Frankly, I have no problem with Mr. Cameron. I don't find that he's particularly positive on some issues for his members, but that's entirely up to him. That's his choice. I have no problem with him. I have spoken to him over the years, and he's actually known one of my staff for many years because they were in the

industry at the time and knew each other. I think they may even have gone to school together.

That's neither here nor there. You can say that I besmirched the man's reputation, which I didn't do. I was just maybe taking out of context something the member said. If that's the case, then I withdraw that piece of the comment.

Basically, on small-scale salvage, we have forest licence to cut, which is really the small-scale salvagers' thing. So that's the small-scale salvage. Then we have the SNRFLs, the salvage non-replaceable forest licences, which can go anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

Hon. R. Coleman: They're called SNRFLs, yes. If you were the minister of this ministry, you would know that one of the first books you probably get is the book of acronyms, so you can read your briefing notes in a different language. I'd like to learn to speak another language. I'd prefer that it wasn't the language of acronyms.

Then we have the community salvage licence, which we did try. They really didn't work that well, so we're not issuing any more. There is still one in operation in the north. We're not doing any more of those. We have moved to some other competitive smaller-tenure opportunities for folks.

B. Simpson: The other comment that the minister made was about salvage operators and the $2 charge, and so on. My understanding is that salvage operators actually engage in that process of trying to figure out how they could pick up some of the responsibilities for silviculture, and so on. They didn't necessarily want to be charged for it. They wanted to grow their capacity to actually do it and to work with the government so that they could be certified to do that.

There have been conversations with the government about some kind of registration and certification process, as far as I'm aware, particularly in the Horsefly area. There have been attempts, as far as I've been made aware, maybe at the district level, for the salvage operators to figure out a way to take on more responsibilities on the land base and not just be charged for any of the liabilities that they leave behind.

Hon. R. Coleman: Talking to my ADM and my deputy, there was some discussion about groupings for small-scale salvagers. We're not aware of any serious proposal with regards to the silviculture description that the member describes. That's why I wanted to get an answer for him.

We're quite happy to see those types of proposals done, but it is, and I'm sure that the member is… By nature of the independence of the salvagers, they don't group together very often. They actually work as independents, and on a very small level.

We're not aware of anything in the wind. If we hear something, I'd certainly make the member aware of it. I think it is important to note that there is a concern among salvagers that the $2-cubic-metre levy for silviculture and ecosystem restoration is to them…. They say that makes it unviable for them to salvage.

When they're doing some of the scales they are, that's something that we think is important because everybody else on the land base that does a larger taking of the land has to have some cost to them too. We haven't made any decisions to mitigate that. I know the member didn't ask me that, but that's what that's about.

B. Simpson: I don't dispute the comment that they would indicate they were struggling with the $2. It was just the way it was characterized.

My understanding is that the salvagers in the Horsefly area, who are organized…. They have a standing organization. I've met with them on a number of occasions. An ex–Ministry of Forests staffer who ran the salvage program out of the Horsefly office is actually a significant player in that group.

They have spoken — and I believe that it must just be, then, at the district level — about finding some kind of arrangements where the salvagers have the opportunity to take on some more responsibilities. As the deputy minister will know, we've had a conversation about concerns that I have about post-beetle. With post-beetle we are not well-positioned with the logging contractors that we currently have. They are heavily capitalized. They depend on large areas and efficiencies of scale.

Once the mountain pine beetle falldown comes, which we'll explore because we don't know when that is…. I'm curious about what the government's data is suggesting. When that comes, one of the things that I think is not on the radar is that the land base is also fractured.

The residual cut will be fractured throughout the timber supply areas. They'll be in small pockets here and there and everywhere. Those large-scale contractors, which the licensees have forced to heavily capitalize to get to the most mechanized and efficient way possible, simply will not have the efficiencies of scale, in my experience and from talking to others.

The reason that I'm canvassing this salvage issue is because I believe there's a group of people there whose skill set we are going to need in order to have a viable harvesting sector, particularly in the interior around the mountain pine beetle area.

Does the minister have any idea of how many salvage operators there are working? Is there a registration process they have to go…? Is it a set of numbers that the ministry can quickly put together?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are hundreds of them out there, as the member knows. We don't have a provincial registry for them, so we would have to ask each regional office, because they actually issue those licences to the small-scale salvagers.

We're not even sure, frankly — and we'll probably have some discussion after estimates — about the utility of the registry, because they really are in the situation of a local relationship with the local office. It's just so we know who's out on the land base. A lot of these folks come and go in and out of the business, and I understand there's quite a bit of turnover in some cases.

Basically, we issue the licence, and we keep files on it. We'd be able to go office to office and have a pretty good idea of how many small-scale salvagers there are. If the member wants us to have our staff do that work — and I'm hoping he doesn't — I could arrange that, but I don't know that there'd be much utility to it. I think probably when he's in an area where he knows the manager — for instance, in his area — I'm sure he'd be able to give an idea of how many small–scale salvager licences there are.

B. Simpson: No, there's no need to collect that data. I was just asking if the minister and his staff had a sense of how many.

In the Williams Lake area one number that I heard bandied about was in the neighbourhood of 300 people that are employed at one time. It's between 300 and 350. In my discussions with the district manager in that area when there were issues with respect to the salvage program, that's equivalent to a fairly large-sized mill.

There would be a whole lot of noise if we were taking a mill down with that number of people working, yet there we were. There were threats to those people being employed because of issues around small-scale salvage.

Because they are dispersed, because they're independents — in the minister's characterization, a group of people who sort of come and go and do it part-time — we lose the fact that they do generate a lot of economic activity in the regions that they work in. They buy their equipment and their gas locally, and they spend most of their money locally.

It's one of those things where you have a bunch of smaller operators who have a much bigger impact, in many cases, on the local economy than some of the larger operators, who can buy from international providers and suppliers who have supply arrangements with North American producers, and so on. So the local economic impact of these small-scale salvagers and small operators of the independent mills that may only employ half-a-dozen people is, in many cases, much larger now than some of the large corporations that have global purchases and a reduced workforce on a per-thousand-cubic-metre basis.

That's why I'm raising the issue, because I do think it's important that this sector gets the attention that it deserves, not only for the future consideration of what will happen on the land base but also, if we are going to diversify those economies, that's exactly how you keep dollars local — through supporting those smaller operators and salvage operators.

There was discussion at one point about restricting all of the activities in district offices. I believe there was actually a letter to this effect out into the district offices about restricting the activities for small-scale salvage and, I think, some other smaller licences, to a maximum of 1.5 FTEs in the office. Is that the case? Was a letter or direction of that kind issued to the district offices?

Hon. R. Coleman: We operate in our regions on the operating basis of a three-year strategic salvage plan in each region. Each district manager gets together a plan for this portion of the industry. That is a rolling plan, so it rolls over to the next year on the three-year strategic.

There are some areas that salvagers need to be targeted to and others where they don't need to because majors are taking the majority of the salvage. So we do try and target salvagers to areas where they can have the most benefit to the land base.

With regards to the budget and the FTEs, Treasury Board gives us a budget, and we identify within our budget a certain amount for particular programs. I think the letter the member refers to is one that basically says: "This is how much we have to manage the small-scale salvage program." In some areas that may be 1.5 FTEs, and others can vary elsewhere across the province.

We try and be as efficient as possible to accommodate these folks within the budget that we have. I know that there were some waits and what have you about a year ago. That issue, in talking to salvagers the last time I was through the area, seems to have died down with local councils.

There are a couple of local councillors that are very vocal up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They keep me apprised of whether there are delays in licences and stuff. That seems to have died down with some of the efficiencies that maybe some of the regional or district managers put in place.

It's really not somebody saying that it's 1.5 FTEs. We have a budget that has to manage everything, as the member knows, from pretty diverse aspects on the land base in British Columbia. So we target a certain resource to this plan and try and build efficiencies around it so we can perform.

B. Simpson: I think it has died down a bit. My understanding is that some of it is the spruce beetle outbreak that we've got, which we're now into doing some salvage with, and some fir beetle and so on.

I guess one of the questions that always comes up is: what is the calculation of net economic benefit that's taken into consideration with the Ministry of Forests and Range staff allocation? The problem, as people see it, is that you have this restricted FTE, and you have all

of these different small licences, and they look like a pain to the Ministry of Forests and Range.

If you can issue one big salvage licence to a licensee, you get it off your desk. They have more horsepower to do it properly. They get the permits in, in an appropriate time and so on, and the ministry can facilitate getting that out the door very quickly.

When you've got a whole bunch of people putting in individual permits and individual plans, it looks like a pain. But again, as I indicated, there is a distinct economic benefit to the local community for that happening.

My question to the minister is more of an open question. How is that calculated with the allocation of FTEs to the work? And for the gallery: that's full-time equivalents or individual people working in the ministry offices. Is the economic benefit taken into account for local communities when that work is allocated?

If you restrict the full-time equivalents too much, you basically extinguish the program. There is a big hit to the local economy that goes quietly away. Is that taken into consideration on some of the calculations on how to allocate resources to programs?

Hon. R. Coleman: It definitely is taken into account, because if it was just on the basis of what it costs the ministry to administer for the small amount of volume that is taken out and that we actually receive any revenue out of, the cost-benefit analysis would show that we shouldn't be doing it at all. So we certainly take into account the value of the small-scale salvager to the land base, which is outside of the value of what it actually costs the ministry to deliver the program.

B. Simpson: The minister has challenged me on a number of occasions to come forward and be positive and proactive and propose things. So if I could, I would propose, then, that in the case of the small-scale salvage operators, it may be time for us to look seriously at some kind of certification training program for them.

I firmly believe that there are areas of the province that are going to need their skill set. And who knows? It may be five years from now; it may be less. So is it possible for us?

In the conversations I've had with some of these folks who have long, land-based experience, they are very familiar with what happens out on the land base. Many of them are interested in some kind of expansion of their business opportunities.

If they are in an area doing salvage within, say, a large salvage area, can their skill set be grown so they do forest health activities, so they do ecosystem restoration activities? Is it possible and is it time for us to look at small-scale salvage differently now, with a view towards the future?

On the coast, as an example — and we're going to get into this shortly with the B.C. Timber Sales stuff — are the storms and the impact of the storms. There is a different skill set there that we may have to use, because those are very dangerous circumstances that we have to ask people to go in and address.

If people think of Stanley Park or the West Coast Trail, that's happened in our entire coastal forest. I'm being told by some of the operators that some of the district staff fly over, look at these things and try to think about how to do salvage or deal with downed trees, and so on. The liability and safety implications are too large. Well, maybe we do an intervention, and we train up some people who have the capacity to do that.

From the perspective of employment, it may be a way to take some of the people who are coming out of the industry and give them meaningful skill sets. If we do it in a way that's meaningful, it may be a way to get some young people in who are not necessarily interested in sitting in a piece of mechanized equipment and having their backbone shattered over 30 years of service — who would prefer to be back on the ground again and doing the kind of work with their own hands and small equipment.

I propose that to the minister. And I'm curious as to whether or not it may be time for us to engage in a strategy to work with these people to notch them up, rather than ramp them down.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, I think a couple of things will have to take place. There is no question that the idea has merit. I think that as we move on the land base, the qualifications of people and how they operate the land base is becoming increasingly more important. If we can provide an opportunity for them to be trained on other things, if they're interested, that would be good.

The member probably knows this. There is probably a bit of a challenge here with some that are pretty independent folks. To try and get them together to sort of talk about doing something as a group might be difficult. What we think we could probably do is….

First of all, we should say that the general idea behind the SNRFL is to try and get it so that operators move up in capacity and training and could do what the member describes, because they've got a larger area of land, probably, that they can work on.

We think that actually the member has come up with a pretty decent idea and that we could try a pilot and see if we can make it work. I think we'll have to pick an area that makes sense. It may be easier to do in an area in the interior where we have a lot of salvagers versus an area like the member described on the coast.

I wouldn't want to start in some of those areas with the blowdown and some of the damage that has taken place. I'd want to send in some pretty experienced fallers to deal with that. It's a pretty tricky operating area, as the member knows. But certainly we will look at a pilot, and we'll keep you apprised of our progress.

B. Simpson: The minister's comment about the SNRFLs…. It was an attempt, but as the minister and his staff know, that didn't necessarily mean that the small-scale salvagers got that. There were some other larger operators who got in that game as well. Some of the small-scale salvagers did got in trouble because

they didn't have the skill set to match the area, the land base and the volume that they had. So it was an attempt to try to ramp up the program, but there were problems with it.

I appreciate that the minister sees some value in that. Of course, it would be nice if it was up in my neck of the woods with a group that's there. There's an ex-ministry staffer, I think, who could be a champion for that. There are also some people up in the Prince George area, some people in the Kamloops area — just that interior region.

I don't think it has to be "try and engage them all." There are some definite champions. There are some definite people who have got very good ideas about what needs to be done. Quite frankly, I think you'll probably get backlash from some of the ones that are more fly by night or want to just get out there and do their own thing.

My sense is that there is a readiness there and, in particular, in looking at attracting young people. The lifestyle, the way of doing things and the way of going about it on the land base, I think, is more attractive in many cases to people who want that outdoor experience than sitting in a feller-buncher for ten or 12 hours a day. So that's terrific.

I would like to move on, then — and this is notification in case there needs to be a staff change — to the B.C. Timber Sales and explore that for a few moments. I'm willing to wait for a few minutes, if you want.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am remiss, I must admit, for the second day in a row, in introducing one of my ADMs, Tim Sheldan, who's the assistant deputy minister of operations for the ministry. Tim was here yesterday. I said, "Give me your title and stuff," and then I immediately forgot to mention who he was. I did the same thing today, and I immediately forgot to mention who he was.

I know that the member opposite knows who he is, but I thought the rest of you might like to know. Also now joining us is Dave Peterson, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for B.C. Timber Sales.

B. Simpson: I think the minister is going to be happy with me for at least three or four minutes here, because I'm going to give my congratulations to the ADM for his work on the structural review with B.C. Timber Sales.

If I go back to what I was saying before about what's happening with the coast restructuring and the transparency and availability of what's going on there, the log export review and the submissions post-review, etc…. I think the minister, if he hasn't already, should take a look at the B.C. Timber Sales website for how that structural review was communicated out. It was done very well, and my kudos to the ADM and his staff for doing that.

You could go on that website at any point and get an update on where the structural review was. You could see the progress reports, the discussion papers. In particular, the one critique I heard was that it was more of an internal review with the advisory board and the ADM and a consultant, but all of the external submissions were also made available on the website — and the final report.

So I think that is a good model, something that I think is necessary with so many people involved and interested in forestry. That's a very good model of how to do things.

Just in terms of flow for this. This is a big, amorphous organization now that has a big mandate and lots on the go. From the flow perspective, what I'd like to do is take a look at the structural review and some of the implications of that, go from there into some of the issues that have arisen recently for B.C. Timber Sales — from the minutes of their last meeting, it's evident that they're still struggling with some things — and then into the service plan and report for B.C. Timber Sales.

Starting with the structural review. One issue in the structural review, of course, was the conflicting mandate. The truck loggers presentation as well as others — Ainsworth and so on — really spoke to the conflicting mandate with B.C. Timber Sales.

My question to the minister is: based on the recommendations from the review, does the minister believe that that conflicting mandate will be reconciled if all of these recommendations are enacted?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were eight specific recommendations related to this particular concern of the member. As he knows, we're implementing all eight. We also think the enhanced accountability, transparency and clarifications will help to deal with that issue. That, combined with the…. Is it timber pricing advisory council? I'll get the right name. There is probably an acronym for it that I could use.

Anyway, with them and their feedback, we think that the operation has moved a long way down the road to addressing those issues around a conflicting mandate.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear. Did the minister just…? His final words in his response are that the operation has already moved a long way to resolving the conflicting mandate.

The structure review was just completed. I think the changes to resolve that conflicting mandate are substantive. Am I understanding the minister correctly that he thinks that we've already gone a long way to resolve it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I said it that way. What I said was that it will move us down a long way to dealing with the conflicting mandate. People, first of all, wanted to know that I'd make a clear decision, which I've made, that we would implement the rec-

ommendations. I'm saying that that, along with enhanced accountability and transparency and clarification, should move us down that road. I didn't say it's going to accomplish it already.

With respect to some of the feedback around the conflicting mandate, probably one of the strongest ones was from the Truck Loggers Association. As the minister may know, they actually were concerned that the whole process was flawed. They were one of the ones that thought it wasn't looking at the right things.

Their language is one of the strongest ones. They've referenced the Competition Council, because they were a partner in the Competition Council at the table, and stated that the council, which was the stimulus in many ways for the structure review, questioned the clearly conflicting mandate of B.C. Timber Sales to provide a credible reference point for costs and pricing of timber harvested from Crown land and to optimize net revenue to the province.

This concern over the conflicting mandate of B.C. Timber Sales led to the fundamental question: is B.C. Timber Sales the right venue to ensure the impartiality and effectiveness of a market-based timber-pricing system. Many of us do not believe that it is.

One of the questions I have is…. There were a number of submissions around the issue of this conflicting mandate. There were a number of submissions that were very strongly worded that it's a real problem. One of the things not on the website is the feedback around going back to people who were engaged in the process and seeing if they were satisfied with the recommendations. Has that loop been closed?

I haven't had a chance to canvass people on this. What would the truck loggers say now, or Ainsworth or the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers, who all made submissions around this issue?

Hon. R. Coleman: Since the report and the review were done and the recommendations went in, I as the minister have said that we're going to implement the recommendation. There have been a number of meetings of the Timber Sales Advisory Council, of which the truck loggers are a member, and they're involved and engaged.

They have not expressed any concern with the result, and actually, at the last couple of TSAC meetings they were quite positive about the fact that the direction has been decided on. They know where it's going. They know that they have input and that they have a relationship through TSAC.

It was a decision made some time ago by myself as a minister that we weren't necessarily going to take everything out of the Competition Council report — like privatize this, look and see if we could build a corporate model in a Crown-type operation. With doing the review and moving it down that road, I'm satisfied with the direction it's been able to achieve to date, and I think that SOLE appears to be the other parties involved in TSAC and the other stuff that goes back and forth.

B. Simpson: Again, B.C. Timber Sales has moved quickly, and in their service plan for '07-08 through '09-10 they have restructured their goals to reflect an attempt, at least, to resolve that internal conflict.

However, my experience in working with organizations is that if you don't change the internal metrics, sometimes you don't achieve the goals that you have changed for external reasons. Is there an internal benchmarking that B.C. Timber Sales uses for the management folks or any kind of incentive system or whatnot for the maximized revenue to the Crown portion?

I'll give you a case in point. We did a lot of work around safety in our solid wood side of the business. We put in all kinds of safety systems. We put in benchmarking for safety and everything else, and we weren't making progress. It took us awhile to understand.

We didn't change our management incentive plan, which did not have safety as a metric. So production and throughput and recovery and all the normal production-based metrics were still part of the management incentive program. Sometimes you set different external benchmarks but don't change the internal ones.

What are the internal mechanisms for B.C. Timber Sales that make sure that people are measured on the maximized revenue? Because that drives how they put sales out, what profile they put out, how they engage with their clients and try to get costs down and so on. Is there an internal benchmark there that also needs to be changed?

Hon. R. Coleman: The internal benchmarks and the external benchmarks are aligned, to start with, so that they can be completely transparent. They did make changes to some of their benchmarks — for instance, volume offered versus volume sold — and obviously a benchmark to make sure they did enough to do the market pricing system because that was one of the benchmarks, and that sort of thing.

They did align their benchmarks and measurements to both the internal and external vision that was being worked on with TSAC as we came through the review. Those are the types of changes.

The short answer could have been just yes, but who would ever want to give a short answer in this place?

B. Simpson: Before I go into some of the recommendations, then, what's the sense of the time frame of actually redoing some of the things that need to be done to get true costs into the system? That's one of the issues associated with pricing — to be able to make the adjustments necessary so that B.C. Timber Sales' operating costs, putting the proper profile out, addressing the no-bids and bids that are not harvested and so on….

What's the time frame for full implementation of that change so that we actually do get to the point where it is reflective of industry's normative costs?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the costing, we pretty much felt that it would all be done by fall. There's an implementation update report which will be posted on the website within probably the next week or so, for the last quarter of last year, January to March 31. There will be an implementation report update, and each quarterly report will be put up on the website.

B. Simpson: One of the things that I think is missing in here…. I appreciate, again, that ongoing communication through B.C. Timber Sales is important, but usually you take something like these recommendations and turn them into an action plan with a time frame so that people know, and then you can measure progress against it as opposed to just reporting out quarterly. Was that phase done, and is it available? I couldn't see one on the webpage — when each step would be taken.

These are general recommendations that will require explicit steps to be taken. I know, for example, recommendation 11 on category 2, which we'll explore a little bit, is quite loose. It just simply says that the program "should be addressed by a broader discussion that considers input received through this review." That one suggests, you know…. Is that discussion going to happen just by people continuing to discuss at TSAC? Are there other people who need to come to the table? "Broader" suggests there should be. Was there an action plan and a time frame put together for this that people can then benchmark with those quarterly reports on progress?

Hon. R. Coleman: On the first eight there are performance measurement benchmarks in place, and I think some of them are actually contained in the service plan. One of the other recommendations is done. That was, obviously, the discussion about whether it would be privatized or not. On cat 2 there are other areas. Basically, BCTS and the ministry have to do some work, and they would report on the progress of that work each quarter. It doesn't have a specific time line attached to it right now.

B. Simpson: Since the minister raised the category 2 part, I would like to explore that for a few minutes. As the minister and his staff will be aware, that's a significant bone of contention with a portion of the forest sector. Could I get a more explicit answer on what will happen to facilitate that discussion with that broader group around the future of cat 2? It's also evolved into the future of the partition itself. What's that going to look like?

It goes back to the whole discussion we were having before about availability of timber to a certain portion of the forest sector that is struggling with that. I note in the minutes of TSAC, from June 8 of last year, that there was the Todd Roberts report put out — the report was actually earlier — that I had to get through FOI with respect to the whole issue of category 2, the partition and everything else. Then that seemed to kind of die off again.

That was a very comprehensive overview submitted by the non-tenured manufacturing sector. It talks about the ministry floating the idea of bonding and says they didn't want to get into bonding. It talks about the partition — the sales, log handling, zero bids, MPS on interior tenures, process requirement, the log export and so on. So will this now be picked back up again and that broader discussion done? If so, will it be a deliberate process with a deliberate time frame?

Hon. R. Coleman: TSAC has actually acted on a number of things that were in Mr. Roberts's report — for example, bonding. The group was actually, as a whole, split on that particular issue. The way the decision was made, they decided to stay with where B.C. Timber Sales and the ministry were dealing with it, as it was for now. My understanding is we will put the cat 2 on the next agenda for TSAC and get advice on devising a process — if we can get some consensus there. Otherwise, we will have to probably devise it separate to that, but we're going to try and see if TSAC can come up with a process on cat 2.

B. Simpson: Part of the confusion about cat 2 is what the public policy is behind it, and I'm wondering if there is clarity going into any kind of process and what the direction from government is. I reference the minutes from June 8, 2006, of TSAC, where it explicitly states that the intention was to phase out cat 2 registrants. This isn't happening. The sawmillers in the north are faced with volume shortages and sales size issues, and part of the problem is the size of the sales that B.C. Timber Sales puts out for some of these cat 2 folks on Vancouver Island.

It was suggested that Timber Sales managers do not appear to have a clear mandate to put out cat 2 sales. The ADM responsible "responded that the current direction from the minister is posing implementation challenges" with respect to "phasing out cat 2 in the long term, while in the meantime maintaining the current cat 2 commitment in recognition of its role and support in certain industry sectors."

In behind…. I don't mean to put the staff member on the spot, but it's right in the minutes. So I'm assuming the minister is apprised of it, and the discussion has been had. There is an inherent conflict just now. There seems to be a lack of clarity and direction to ministry staff that is causing problems for current cat 2 holders. I know I get submissions from folks who say: "I want to be a cat 2 holder." They're told by district offices that they're not taking any new registrants, so they feel that it's an unfair playing field.

While the process is underway, what is the policy direction with respect to cat 2 for the current cat 2–qualified and for people who want to be?

Hon. R. Coleman: The comments of the ADM at the meeting in June 2006 were probably correct. The minister was, at the time, weighing a number of things with regard to small tenures. That's why we didn't eliminate cat 2. We maintained it. As the member knows, the forest revitalization plan actually talked about phasing it out as the wood became available through the takeback and that sort of thing.

One of the things I did ask my staff to do last fall as we came through those discussions is to find a competitive, restricted tenure — a smaller one for smaller operators, if it's possible. That's what Bill 18 has in it with regard to that. I don't know whether we would give it the name category 2, but we're looking at how we can make that work. It was one of those things that, as you learn your ministry and you come through it, you say, "I think we should take another look at this" — a sober second look, which is what I've asked them to do.

Obviously, the Timber Sales Advisory Council can talk to me about cat 2, but I think also with Bill 18 changes and trying to blend these, we can get to the successful conclusion of this issue.

B. Simpson: To try and save face for myself here…. I didn't read anything in here that the ADM's comments were dissing the minister. I just read that it was unclear what the direction was, which I think everybody understood. We weren't clear on what we were doing to phase it out and phase it in.

I will point out again, though, on the theme of government policy being part of restricting the access to timber…. This is another area where that group is saying: "There's a policy vacuum there." As we've seen on the coast, some district managers weren't putting out the sales, and the size of the sales and so on in other areas were causing problems.

With the cat 2 registrants and looking at the bill that we have before the House…. We'll explore a little bit further what the thought is behind that.

What about the partition itself? The concern is that you could…. If cat 2 goes, the real concern is that partition and whether or not that partition will remain. Is there any intent on the part of government to remove the partition?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I expect my staff to challenge me and question me, so I don't…. We do have sometimes lively discussions as I try and say, "What about this?" or "What about that?" Usually I get, "Well, Minister…," and then I get their reasoning. We go back and forth and come to a decision because that's what's very good — when you have very good professional public service working for you who are strong enough in character that they can have those debates with you and give you pretty good advice.

My guys are just a little confused as to how you're using the word "partition" within this. Maybe you could explain that a little better for them. They could probably get you to the answer.

B. Simpson: One of the things that I've found in this job that gives me a bit of a break is to watch the Yes Minister series. The back and forth between senior staff and the minister there is quite funny.

The concern is expressed to me, and I don't understand all of this. You have to go back and figure out how all of this works. My understanding is that the volume available is partitioned explicitly for category 2. It's about three million cubic metres. I don't know how it's apportioned around the various timber supply areas, but it's in that order of magnitude.

It was specifically set aside for category 2. What people are telling me is that in the phase-out of the category 2 program, it's still possible if you restructure the program to leave that partition set aside for independents and others to get at it. They just qualify for it differently than the category 2–type qualification.

They have separated it — at least in expression to me, and maybe I'm misunderstanding — for me between rejigging the category 2 program and completely getting rid of the partition where that fibre is explicitly available for the non-major licensees and processors.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member, as he describes the partition, which is the separate volume, we'll continue and cat 2 will continue until we finish Bill 18 and I make the decision on how the new small, competitive, restricted tenures will work.

It could be very similar to cat 2. It could be cat 2. But we're giving ourselves the tool to do it so that we can move forward, and then we will devise it so that TSAC will be part of that; the industry will be part of that. But nothing will change on the ground until I get through the bill and then sit down and work with our folks to decide what that looks like in the future.

B. Simpson: Just for clarity, will that be communicated to all of the districts so that we don't have that situation where there's lack of certainty around what they're supposed to do and we get some districts that aren't putting cat 2 sales out and other districts that aren't certain whether they should put them out or not? It may have been communicated already, but is that communication part of what's going on in that category 2 review?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're not sure why there would be confusion. We have already identified that volume by timber supply area within the cat 2 to each area, each region, and they would have had that communicated to them. What we will do is we will recommunicate it. If the member's got a specific office that seems to be more confused than another, we can also make sure that there's a bit more information sent.

The understanding is that the cat 2 volume by region and district has been identified, and it gets communicated out to the offices, and they should know what that is today.

B. Simpson: I'm just reflecting the confusion that was in the minutes of TSAC itself, where it indicated

that there are some districts…. The coast is different than the interior and so on. Also, that's feedback I've been given, where people have gone in and talked about cat 2 sales around the province — ones, for example, that wanted to register, and the feedback they were given about it being phased out and they're going to put no sales out, and ones that are already registered and uncertain about whether sales are coming out or not. So I think it's just that uncertainty just now as this evolves. It's not a specific case.

With respect to partition, then, one of the things that was recommended in the structural review that didn't appear — at least I don't see it in the recommendations that were adopted — was the issue of possibly partitioning B.C. Timber Sales volume. Again, I may not be as up to date on this as I should be, but with respect to B.C. Timber Sales, does B.C. Timber Sales have the capacity just now to explicitly designate certain volumes for certain categories? If not, would that be considered?

Hon. R. Coleman: Other than cat 2, no. There's no intention to do anything else like this. So we'll do the competitive restricted discussion at another date. The structural review clearly recommended an open and competitive process on the market pricing of the lumber for a number of reasons.

One is that we use it as the MPS system but also recommend an open, competitive bidding system with regards to that. So there won't be any changes other than what we've discussed.

B. Simpson: The minister raises the issue of an open, competitive market. In recommendation 10 it talks about looking at the whole volume that B.C. Timber Sales has as part of it. So there's the cost side and how you rationalize the cost against what the industry benchmarks are. There's the issue, then, of putting the whole profile out, and so on.

But one of the significant issues is: does B.C. Timber Sales actually have enough volume? When you've only got 20 percent, is that enough volume to set the market pricing system? In recommendation 10 it seems to suggest that it's been looked at but that it's a bigger public policy issue as to whether or not more volume comes forward into B.C. Timber Sales.

Is there or will there be any discussion about the possibility of adding more volume to B.C. Timber Sales over the next few years?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we designed the system, we had expert advice from MDI, who are world experts on this particular issue, from Harvard and Stanford universities. They gave us the advice, and they assured us that the 20 percent was more than enough to devise a proper auction and market pricing system.

B. Simpson: However, there was advice given during the process. It's my understanding that some of the undercut, etc., some of the things that are out there — and again, we'll discuss this in Bill 18, about the ability to move that undercut around…. So do I hear in the minister's response to me that at this juncture we're not looking at growing B.C. Timber Sales' volume in the near future?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's not the case. We don't want to go lower than 20 percent, but in the sense that we decide to allocate some of an undercut to B.C. Timber Sales in addition to — that could very well happen. On the beetle uplift we've done it, where we've augmented their volumes by giving them some of the uplift. So we would continue to do that.

B. Simpson: Before I move into the actual operating plan, there is another inherent conflict. It's flavoured in some of the submissions, and it was raised initially by the environmental community. That is the issue of the low-cost part of B.C. Timber Sales. The type of feedback that I get around B.C. Timber Sales is that often B.C. Timber Sales' operating areas and volumes that they put out are in areas that other licensees wouldn't dare go in — watersheds or other habitat areas, etc.

Early on, one of the environmental groups made a submission to B.C. Timber Sales about operating, for example, in mountain caribou habitat, in spotted owl habitat and mountain goat winter range, etc.

So it was raised in some of the submissions, and it has been raised with B.C. Timber Sales. I believe this was through Western Canada Wilderness. That's actually the group.

What is it that B.C. Timber Sales is doing to demonstrate the highest possible stewardship on the land base? As the Crown agent on the land base, it's my expectation and the expectation of a lot of others that it demonstrate the highest possible standards when it comes to stewardship as part of its operating mandate, and that it become a role model for other licensees out there.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, forest practice, forest stewardship and sound forest management are part of the service plans. Achievement has been through…. We're at 100 percent ISO, International Standards Organization, standards. We're at 60 percent, in addition to that, as certification of that on environmental certification, either CSA or SFI. We also have the Forest Practices Board, which does audits and does stuff.

Some of the recent quotes from their news releases with regards to B.C. Timber Sales: "B.C. Timber Sales received good grades." "Forest Practices Board is impressed with the high level of performance." "B.C. Timber Sales complied with all requirements."

Basically, they have it in their service plan, and they work to achieve those goals. By all accounts, they appear to be getting there and are doing a good job.

B. Simpson: With respect to the Forest Practices Board, those are spot audits. It's not a general statement of all operating areas of B.C. Timber Sales.

With respect to the certification, ISO 14001 is a self-declaring certification standard. You say what your environmental certification system is going to look like, you measure yourself against it, and you have an independent auditor come out and take a look and see if you're going against your own benchmarks.

With the ISO 14001…. I was involved in rolling out a lot of those programs throughout the company I worked for. It was a standard established for all B.C. Timber Sales, so it's one standard environmental management system for all of the operating areas and all the offices.

Hon. R. Coleman: We achieve it everywhere, but as the member knows, there are other things that get applied, depending on the operating area that you deal with. You mentioned some of the issues — like mountain caribou or spotted owl or those sorts of things — that come into how you actually have to incorporate those into your plans, I guess. We have achieved it across the board, but there are additional things that are done in each area, too, with regards to standards.

B. Simpson: I understand, and I've seen in the service plan reports, the move towards certification. I'm wondering, though, since this is a Crown corporation, why we wouldn't set a standard of certification that the entire BCTS operating regime would meet and, specifically, ramp it up. There are a lot of people who don't like CSA or don't like SFI. Why wouldn't we go to something like FSC, or why wouldn't we go to a higher level of certification?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, we're trying to achieve certification. I guess that 60 percent is either CSA or SFI. That doesn't mean we discount FSC or any of those other standards, as we do in trying to achieve those, as well, across the land base.

B.C. Timber Sales' job is to package it, get it to standard, work within the certifications and achieve the best property stewardship and sound forest management within their service plan. I think they're working down those goals pretty well to achieve what they've identified in their service plan.

B. Simpson: What I don't understand, though, is why we wouldn't set a standard or a benchmark, and I'm not hearing that we're moving towards that. I think it's fine that we've got the ISO 14001 and that some areas are CSA and SFI, but this is a Crown acting as a major licensee out on the land base at a time when the land base is shifting, forest health is an issue and so on, and at a time where we need to grow the capacity to have those higher environmental standards.

I guess there was a presumption in many cases, the Forest Practices Board and others have pointed it out, that results-based code…. There was a hope that what would backfill the lack of regulations would be a move towards higher certification standards. What we've seen over time is a bit of a slippage on even the bottom end of certification standards, in some cases.

My question is more from a strategic perspective. B.C. Timber Sales, as they get used to certification and maintaining certification standards…. Will a benchmark be established for a higher standard as a standard throughout all B.C. Timber Sales operations?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the service plan they're going to do proper stewardship and sound forest management. That's important. They are gaining experience with all the standards for costing purposes. We also have to remember that B.C. Timber Sales puts this wood up for sale, and it's part of the market pricing system. They strike a balance as they hit their standards and achieve them in a marketplace as well. I think we have to allow them to strike a balance, and I think they will achieve the expertise in each area and apply it in the particular operating areas over time.

B. Simpson: Thank you for the reprieve. I put my coffee in by IV, so I'm good for the next hour.

The minister's last comment actually explicitly states the second inherent conflict. The minister indicated that we have to be careful in how much we go into certification because of the benchmarking required on cost, and that's the trap. So on the one hand, you have the conflict around maximized revenue to the Crown with respect to how the volume comes out and the profile of the volume that comes out, and that causes some grief in the marketplace. The second inherent conflict is: do it at cost. So my question to the minister around this….

This is a conflict that actually has the potential to undermine stewardship values and how B.C. Timber Sales operates as a steward, particularly since it's the Crown acting as the steward. What is B.C. Timber Sales or the Crown doing to try and get certification up across the land base so that everybody can come up together?

There was a presumption in the Forest and Range Practices Act — the whole deliberation around results-based code — that certification would backstop the removal of the regulations. So rather than continue with this conflict where you've got to measure cost against stewardship values…. The expectations for B.C. Timber Sales will be higher. There's no question that they will be higher, because they are a Crown agency.

Is the government doing anything to try and facilitate a broader move towards a higher level standard, whether it's looking at EBM on the coast and trying to grow that, or the Forest Stewardship Council approach, which seems to be the one that is recognized as one of the higher-level ones by the ENGOs. Is there a process in place to try to move everybody up?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think it's a conflict so much as…. This Crown is going to operate, as I said, with the proper stewardship and sound forest management on the ground. That's in its service plan. How it defines that, they will do as they grow as a corporation. As I said, they are at 100 percent ISO — the member knows that, and we've had that part of the discussion — and 60 percent certification now, either in CSA or SFI. I think it's a growing thing, just as it will be for the rest of industry, quite frankly, who will hopefully grow together as they establish these standards.

I don't think I want to…. I'm not going to go down the EBM road at this moment. We may get into that as the member does other estimates next week or whenever we start this back up again after today, but EBM is a whole other discussion, as the member knows. I don't think that we want to get into that one today because I don't think that we actually have enough time to do that.

I'd also, before I sit down, like to welcome David Puterman, who's an operations division personnel person in the Ministry of Forests. He's also joined us in the House.

B. Simpson: Again, this may be an area that we agree to disagree, but my question to the minister was: is the ministry taking a leadership role in attempting to bring all licensees and all operators on the land base up the certification chain to a higher level of certification and trying to move the province towards FSC?

That way, everybody starts to bear the cost of a level playing field of certification. Otherwise, what you end up doing is perpetuating this inherent conflict that you're going to have to continue to measure costs — and we'll get into the cost next — against the revenue to the Crown, and you perpetuate that need to act like a normative private sector licensee instead of what you are, which is a Crown acting as a licensee.

Is there any leadership being taken, particularly with some of the feedback on the forest stewardship plans and the Forest and Range Practices Act, to try and get everybody to come up in standards of certification?

Hon. R. Coleman: We allow companies to choose, so in British Columbia we recognize all three as being credible and internationally recognized standards — that's CSI, or CSA…. CSI is my favourite TV show, actually. I really like that show, but it has nothing to do with our forest standards. So that's CSA, SFI and FSC. FSC has an area-based focus, whereas we have lots of areas that are volume-based, not area-based. It's not as simple as saying: "Go to that particular standard."

Just for the member's information on the standards and how they're applied on the land base, to our knowledge today there's 28.1 million hectares of land under CSA, 13.7 million hectares under SFI and 665,000 hectares under FSC in B.C.

B. Simpson: If you roll EBM into that, it is part of the problem, and it's been articulated to B.C. Timber Sales in terms of the costing and how you do your market pricing system when you have the differential standards. So talking to Tembec, which is one of the FSC standards, if they're up against somebody who's got a lower standard — a CSA, for example — their costs of maintaining that standard are much higher than a CSA standard.

Anybody who has to operate in the Great Bear region under EBM will have higher costs of operating, as they try to put EBM in place, than others who have lower standards. I guess it's part of the issue.

If we're going to get to that true cost, is B.C. Timber Sales trying to look at how they account for companies that actually achieve higher standards? Will there be a cost differential for them or a recognition somehow that they're operating at a different standard?

Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said, we allow companies to choose, and we won't treat B.C. Timber Sales any differently. They'll be allowed to choose. They choose FSC because of certain market conditions or whatever. A company does that, and there may be areas where that will be applicable as one of the internationally recognized standards for an area for BCTS.

At the same time, we shouldn't confuse the EBM side of the discussion. EBM is actually a government-imposed standard in the central coast plan. It is not something they get to choose; they all have to do EBM. B.C. Timber Sales is as active in EBM in that particular area of the province and the experiences with it as any other company.

B. Simpson: To the minister: thank you for that clarification. I wasn't clear how that was working. I note in TSAC, though, that EBM came up as an issue, as a cost issue. That's why I was asking for the clarification on there.

I guess my concern — the concern that has been expressed to me and why I'm raising it here — is that if we're not careful in how we do the market pricing system and how we do stumpage calculations for people…. It doesn't take into consideration organizations, licensees or others that are moving up in standards of certification. You make those higher standards uncompetitive, and as the market tightens and as you start to get more rationalization, those that want to maintain higher standards or go to higher standards then get a regime that's not as competitive for them because they're not credited for that higher standard in the system.

I get the same calculations if I'm down in the low end — if I'm only ISO 14001–certified — as I do if I'm FSC-certified. You actually make it a disincentive to move up into those higher standards if we're not careful on how we're calculating.

Has there been discussions — I'm not talking about B.C. Timber Sales; I'm talking about other licensees — about how we recognize the higher standards and the higher environmental standards, whether they need to move in that direction for market requirements or it's just a choice by that company? Is there any ability to recognize those higher standards in the cost calculations and, therefore, the stumpage appraised for those licensees?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try to take a stab at this. We don't decide that one system is better than the other. We let the companies choose in B.C. That's voluntary, including for B.C. Timber Sales. Now, if a company chooses to go to FSC or a standard — let's not just pick on FSC; let's say a standard — they're making that decision as a company based on, I would assume, what they think they can get access to in a market. Because they have one standard over another, it gives them better access. Therefore, it would give them the price they're looking for, for their product, to take into consideration those additional costs, because they have markets that are based on that.

We're not going to go out and dictate the choice of CSA, SFI or FSC to the companies of British Columbia because, as the member knows, the market will change. Actually, the international markets may drive some of this over time, as well, as different jurisdictions say they'll take wood of a certain standard and as companies then adjust in order to market into those.

There's nothing stopping anybody from bidding on a B.C. timber sale at any time, and there's nothing stopping them, after they bid or buy in a B.C. timber sale, from choosing to apply another standard to the area of fibre that they bought. That's their choice, again, just like we allow them to choose at the beginning. You know, somebody could buy a piece and say: "Well, right now we have this in CSA, for example, but we're going to go to FSC. We'll do the additional for the FSC because we know that gives us access to X market, and we want to do this as a company." They can make that choice.

B. Simpson: I take the minister's point that sometimes these companies go this way because there's a differential rate in the marketplace. But they also are forced sometimes…. I'm not sure if the minister is aware of what's happening with Victoria's Secret and other things, where they're forcing the industry to go….

The Chair: Order. If members wish to comment, they must do so from their own seats.

B. Simpson: The company that produces the catalogue that got everybody to wake up has established higher standards for those who provide it the raw material for making the catalogue. Sometimes it's not just a preferential rate in the marketplace; it's a market demand at the same price. It forces them to incur input costs while the market hasn't changed to offset that cost.

The other reason that I'm raising it is because the question around the Forest and Range Practices Act is, again, that presumption that we would backfill the regulations with higher standards. As the minister keeps talking about the marketplace and the licensees and so on, over top of all of this, though, they are our public forests. So if we can drive to a higher level of certification, then it benefits all British Columbians in how we manage our land base to that higher level.

Let me try a different tactic, because one of the struggles that we have in the forest sector…. I believe that the government has made a deliberate choice to enter into the game at the low-cost end. That's why we're trying to get regulations down, the wage cost down and all the input costs down. One of the reasons for that is because the rest of the world's fibre input costs are not as high as ours. They're either managing fibre farms or they're getting their fibre from illegal sources and unsustainable forest practices, so they don't have the same input costs because they don't have the same criteria for the land base that we do here.

So for us to enter into the marketplace by discounting our land base…. This is what a lot of people these days think that we have done. I think we're going to see more and more things come up on the website around the waste that's out on the land base, some of the practices in watersheds, the wildlife habitat and everything else. Again, this is not B.C. Timber Sales in its entirety — although I believe that there are areas of B.C. Timber Sales that are in dispute on how they're operating in some of these areas — but certainly, it's a growing concern around the province.

One of the ways that we can address that, however, is in showing leadership by going out into the marketplace and helping to drive a greater demand for a higher level of environmental standards.

My question, then, is: is the B.C. government engaged in any activities in trying to get the marketplace to shift to demanding lumber and forest products from more sustainable forest practices? Because that's the other way of doing this: where we demand, where we help the market to demand those higher environmental standards, where we help the market to demand products from sustainably managed forests with some sort of certification standard. That's the other way of going into the marketplace. Is the B.C. government in any way involved in an initiative to drive market demand for higher certification standards for forest products?

Hon. R. Coleman: We accept all certification systems, and we treat them all equally. That would be CSA, SFI and FSC. They're all three internationally recognized systems. We do cost survey pickups of certification costs. We actually do that; we pick up some of the costs of certification. We average it across the board. We promote through FII that we have sustainable forest practices in all three categories in British Columbia as we promote wood internationally as part of British Columbia's forest marketing initiatives.

B. Simpson: I'll leave that at that point. I believe that we need to take a much more proactive role in the marketplace. I don't believe we can continue on this trend of discounting, trying to get in the marketplace as a low-cost producer. It's not viable over the long term. Our fibre won't sustain it over the long term. Our input costs, our wage costs, all of those things won't sustain it over in the long term if you look at what's happening in the economy. I think that we should be showing a lot more leadership and driving the demand for standardization and for higher levels of environmental standards, but I guess it's one of those areas that the minister and I will agree to disagree on.

I need to do one catch-up, because I did find a reference to a report that I was looking for earlier. Then I want to go on to B.C. Timber Sales, their annual report.

I referenced a report earlier from '05, and the minister referenced that he read it in the fall of '05. I do have the name here. We've tried to get it through freedom of information, but we have not been successful in getting it. It's a report on growing the value-added sector, and it was produced in March of '05, so just before the election window. That may be why it's kind of lost somewhere in the ether. It was produced by Ray Schultz, the ADM. I would be very interested in seeing that report and what it had to say about the value-added sector, if the minister can put his hand on it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Schultz is now the head of the emergency response team on pine beetle, and there was a reason he was moved over there: he did some very good work.

I will see if I can get my hands on something for the member and get it to him in the next week or ten days or so. Hopefully, by that time we will actually have moved down the road where you'll see where the action is taken with regards to the work that's been done on the…. You know, the work that I was talking about earlier with regards to the work that B.C. Wood would be ready to move out as well.

That would be good, if we could accomplish that. I'm happy to try and arrange that for the member.

B. Simpson: With respect to B.C. Timber Sales and their annual report here, there are a couple of things in here that I want to explore.

I'm not clear on the capitalized expenses. I'm not clear how that is defined in here, because it talks about, I believe — let me just go to the definition — the capital expenses: total costs associated with developing and selling the timber harvested in the year, post-sale activities such as harvest conformance and post-harvest activities such as silviculture, and the period costs such as administrative overhead and road maintenance.

Where in here is the silviculture liability of B.C. Timber Sales actually listed? Silviculture liability is accrued forward, as far as I understand it, and I know that companies are different in how they account for it. Some companies actually don't show their silviculture liability. Some companies — like Tolko, I believe — actually put a line item on their balance sheet for the silviculture liability. How does B.C. Timber Sales show their silviculture liability in their financial statement?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not a line item. It's included in the total capital expenditure when we first develop a block. It's carried forward until the block is harvested and scaled. The stumpage cost is then paid into government, and we recoup the capital against the stumpage back into B.C. Timber Sales. So we capitalize it like a liability until that time.

B. Simpson: I guess what I'm trying to understand is that we have the line items here, but is there a hidden accrued liability that's not explicit in the financial statement, where I can actually look — and this is how I believe Tolko reports it out — and see that we have a liability on the books that we keep carrying forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm having a bit of a chuckle to myself, because the ADM made mention to me that government's accounting practices are a bit different than the private sector. I've sat on Treasury Board, and I can attest to that because of how the Auditor General has allowed us to carry forward capital and do certain things a whole lot differently than the private sector.

It's been a discussion in successive governments. I'm sure anyone that has been around this building will remember. It doesn't matter which generation of government has had those interesting challenges.

What we do is…. It's actually included in a line item on the resource summary on page 8 of the business plan, where it says, "Gross revenue," and then the second line item is: "Less expenses capitalized." It's included in that, and we could break it out further for the member if he wants that information. We don't have that here today, but that's where it's carried forward.

B. Simpson: I actually think that this should be required of all forest companies reporting publicly in British Columbia. The reason I say that is that it's becoming an issue that is expressed to me, particularly by companies that either do it or that are family-owned that have a vested interest in remaining so and are concerned about the larger corporations that, as consolidation occurs and as companies come and go, silviculture liability can get lost somewhere in the system.

It is a carry-forward — right? It's a liability that stays on the books and is carried forward if it's not

explicitly stated. I assumed it had to be in there. If it was stated underneath what the accrued silviculture liability is, then you can see that that's what they're carrying forward. So not only for B.C. Timber Sales, but I think that companies operating in the province and, particularly, operating in the mountain pine beetle areas in the interior….

What's been explained to me…. I don't understand all of this. I'm not a bean-counter — no offence to people who are in the accounting trade. I don't understand how it all works, but what's been expressed to me is a concern that we have large salvage areas. We have large areas that will require silviculture. As you get closer to the end of the beetle usability, the shelf life of that wood, you actually have a large silviculture liability with no revenue generation. So when your silviculture liability peaks, your ability to underwrite that is at its bottom.

There's a concern being expressed to me by a number of people in the interior that we may be setting ourselves up for a real problem if we're not careful, because as companies buy each other out and that's not declared explicitly, or required to be declared explicitly, then we may have some issues there with people walking away from those silviculture liabilities.

With respect to B.C. Timber Sales — again, as a role model for licensees — I'm wondering if it's possible for that to be declared differently, as an example to others of how it ought to be, and whether or not the government has the capacity to ask companies or regulate companies that they report that liability out more explicitly.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, we're aware of that concern too, but we do have deposits from the companies that we hold, and that sort of thing. Actually, what we're going to say is that we're going to take this under advisement and see if we can do it. We'll see if we can. We'll look at how we could do it in future statements because it's not a bad idea, and we think we can do it. So why not try it?

B. Simpson: My thanks to the minister and his staff. Certainly, the expression of concern around this is growing. I think if B.C. Timber Sales demonstrates it and if we engage with the licensees around it…. I'm not sure. I've been told that the deposits that we hold, etc., relative to the scale and the magnitude of what we might be confronted with, are fairly miniscule.

That would give comfort to some people who are expressing this to me. I appreciate the minister's openness to take suggestions in this way. I think that we've actually had an interesting afternoon that way. It makes my job more interesting when those opportunities are made available to me.

With respect to the resource summary. On the capital budget's line there is a significant jump there from the '05-06 actual of 193 to the 890 projected, through 890 held flat. Why has that capital budget made that jump and maintained that way for the next little while?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a misprint. The ADM responsible for B.C. Timber Sales looked at it and said: "Oh." Then we brought in our person, who is our financial whiz, who mentioned to us that that is actually a capital budget in thousands — not in millions.

It's a bit of…. Trying to get to a capital budget that makes sense on a flatlined average, but it's not in the millions.

B. Simpson: I still have a question, though. I know there's the ramp-up associated with having to do the capital work. In reading the TSAC comments, there's an issue of getting access to blocks sold and ramping up that access. Is that part of this change as well — to try and get roads in advance of sales so that people can actually get into the sale? Is that anything to do with that?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first one is really a reflection of the growth of the company. Because it's ramping up, it needs more computers, office equipment and that sort of thing. The second one, where we are on the cubic metre development cost — where we're finding it's more expensive for roads and that sort of thing — is actually contained under "Metre developed in cubic metres," down on a lower line.

B. Simpson: Just because we're on the cost structure…. I may have to come back, to understand the unit costs here, but part of what happened this year — and I know BCTS was particularly hit — was the winter storms. I don't see this reflected in the plan.

Has that been taken into account? Is there any sense of what the cost was of those storms? My understanding is we lost roads and bridges, and we had quite a bit of infrastructure that was undermined by the storms. Has there been any cost calculation on that, and where is it reflected in here?

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually pretty well knew this answer, but I had it confirmed. That is that we are actually evaluating now. The snow cap is still pretty high, so we're not able to evaluate the total damage or costs that we may be facing on the items the member has described.

Thank you, hon. Member, for your discussions the last few days. I'm sure we'll continue next week.

Noting the hour, I would like the committee to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to ask all members to have a safe but exciting and enjoyable weekend, and with that I move that the House do now adjourn.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)

Hon. M. Coell: One issue that I said I'd get back to the member on was the master of digital media, the graduate program that's being funded. It's a two-year program — $20,000 a year for domestic students and $30,000 a year for international students.

R. Fleming: This afternoon I would just propose to the minister that we continue on with some of the discussion we were having on the very important report around the 25,000-spaces initiative and, also, the planning that is going on in his ministry for that.

There are some of my colleagues who wish to ask questions of a local-institution nature as well. Monday we had said we would talk about the R-and-D aspect and private post-secondary. One of my colleagues who is in the other House doing forestry legislation in estimates will not be able to attend the session, but he does have some questions about those institutions, so maybe we'll carry that over if one of your staff who has knowledge of that could be there.

Maybe this afternoon we can talk about some things again around enrolment and campus capital planning. I want to just continue on with some questions. We were having a dialogue about the spaces initiative before we adjourned earlier today.

I wanted to direct the minister's attention to part of the recommendations and discussion in the Auditor General report that would suggest that the snapshot amount of seats that had been expanded — 7,417 new seats after two complete years of the initiative of the 25,000 seats…. Could the minister explain why that disappointing number was there? Was it because the government simply got off to a very slow start after its announcement? Or was there some…? I think he talked about a lag year in there somewhere. Was it indeed lag time between the announcement and the first opportunity to begin expanding by semester in an academic year?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and answer that. When the program was announced, initial allocations went to all of the institutions and colleges and universities. They began to put their programs in place. Some were faster than others at hiring staff, building buildings and opening their spaces.

But I can tell you, the audited statement for 2005-2006 shows that the total utilization after funding is 98 percent. If you add in the ITA apprenticeship programs into the college systems, specifically, it goes to almost 102 percent, which is pretty close to 100 percent.

I think for the $2 billion budget, that's pretty good. I have to compliment our partners to be able to do that. I know that some are higher, as high as 111 percent; and others are lower, as low as 80 percent. We have a huge amount of staff and students, but to come that close to utilization I think is pretty good.

R. Fleming: I actually want to pin down a number, because I think I just made an error in using the report's number. The number of seats at the two-year point, I'm sorry, was supposed to be 7,400 and the Auditor General found it to be just over 4,000.

The minister suggested in earlier discussion that his government has funded almost 12,000 of the 25,000 seats to date. Given that this report covers the year prior to this…. It came out in December 2006, and it covers the first two years of the initiative. At that point in time, they were 54 percent of where they should have been, according to their own targets, at or around 4,000 seats.

A year has gone by, indeed, and the minister is suggesting that they in effect have gone from 4,000 to 12,000. So I'm just wondering if he can provide me with some further detail.

Hon. M. Coell: I could give sort of a rounded example of when the program started. The first year we funded 4,000 seats, and we actually created 4,000. The second year we funded 4,000. There was almost zero growth that year in the system. The third year we funded 4,000 and got 4,000.

As we move towards the 2010 date, we'll be picking up every year. I think that's why the Auditor General said he's satisfied that we'll get to our goal. But it's just…. You fund, and the numbers aren't necessarily

going to be exactly what you fund every year. But at the end of the day you should — and he agrees — get to the funded number of actual seats.

R. Fleming: Earlier in discussion here we talked about how the government was behind, and I was asking questions about whether the government was going to accelerate new space creation to in fact catch up in order to stay on track with the time line of this initiative.

What the minister has just said is that in year 1, they expected to create 4,000 and did. In year 2 they expected to create — give or take — 4,000, and they didn't. In fact, it was almost no growth.

So now, with year 3, the minister earlier said that you're at 12,000, but the starting point was 4,000 in the first year with no growth in the second year. If the third year is to achieve the target of 4,000, then you're still going to be basically a third behind. Is that the case? Is that what the lag is today?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is correct in that we're funding the seats, and they're creating them. The students were there; 4,000 showed up the first year. It was flat the second year, and 4,000 have shown up the third year.

That's enhanced what the Auditor General is saying: "You were 50 percent behind after your first year. At this point, you're now 30 percent behind. The next year you may catch up, but at the end of the game, you're going to hit." He believes and we believe that we'll hit the 25,000 if we keep funding.

I think what I had mentioned earlier to the member was that if one year the system doesn't have enough uptake and the next year we didn't fund that uptake, then you'd create a lag.

What we're going to do is continue to fund at the $40-million-a-year pace. Then by the time we're finished, the whole system will have energized and created not only the spaces but the students to fill them.

R. Fleming: Yesterday the minister said that the government had created 11,811 spaces, when in fact it looks like they've funded around 11,811. Is that the difference we're having? If that's the funding, then how many is the actual creation to date of new spaces?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that's what I was trying to explain using the rounded numbers. Over the three years we've actually funded 12,000 spaces. There are 8,000 student FTEs in those spaces. One of the things we're doing, with the help of our partners, is to reallocate some seats — and we talked briefly about that — where a college will say, "Well, we'll give up 20 of our seats," to move them so that actual bodies fit into them, rather than just having the spaces created. I can share with the member some of those numbers. They're small. They're in the hundreds of changes where they move around. But I think it would be worth looking at.

R. Fleming: I think I'm getting it straighter here that in fact there are only 8,000 spaces that have been created….

The Chair: Could you please direct all the remarks through the Chair? Thank you.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The minister is trying to help me here, but I will direct questions through you.

I'm trying to get an apples-to-apples comparison of progress to date using the same measurements that the Auditor General used. I think it goes to a secondary point that he was making in his report where he was interested in the difference between funding positions and actually creating positions.

The minister has said you can't force students to go to school earlier, and that's a fair point. But the issue that I think he's interested in — and that I'm interested in canvassing here — is whether government is actually ensuring that new funds are used for new spaces or whether they are being used to fund inflationary pressures or something else. Now we're in a situation where the government is saying: "Well, we got it wrong in the mix and where we thought the spaces should go and where they could be created, so we're going to reallocate them." But right now, you are funding more than you've actually created or filled, and you're in the process of reallocating it.

Maybe the minister could just explain again the difference his ministry has and whether he agrees with the Auditor General in this discussion bit about funding versus creating actual spaces.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll use a couple of analogies. If you look at the 25,000-seat commitment and the funds that go with it, it's sort of like building a bus. Once you have got the bus built and the driver, you need the passengers. What we're doing is building a bus and putting the driver in it, and it'll fill up with students after it's built.

So in many instances you've got the funding for 12,000 spaces funded. There might be a classroom that actually could hold 30 students that has 20 in it. That's where you don't want to stop the funding just because you don't have a full class. You want to make sure that you have got the class there with the opportunity for students to come to it.

I think that's sort of the positive way of doing it. If we did it any other way, I think we wouldn't get to 25,000. The idea with reallocation is to make sure there is regional access as well.

R. Fleming: Well, on the minister's analogy of the bus, I think what I'm concerned about — and what the report certainly discusses — is that, indeed, the government is building the bus, if you like, and building physical space and a lot of this initiative….

So four out of five dollars are going towards capital and 200 for operating. The worry is that the bus is being built, but the passengers aren't coming because the bus fare has become too expensive.

Tuition fees have gone up, and this is part of the discussion in that report. Student grants have been eliminated. There are active disincentives out there that are discouraging, unfortunately, young people from that 18-to-29-year-old cohort from coming to our public post- secondary institutions.

So I think that is something that I would like the minister to comment on, because I would still like to get the number of spaces created to date, for this year.

Hon. M. Coell: If the member wouldn't mind, I can get you those numbers. They are not how we…. We think we understand what you're asking for. We fund spaces. The institutions create those spaces, and then they tell us what they have created to justify getting the money they have got. What we'll do is go back and look at the actual spaces created and get back to you, but I won't be able to do that today.

R. Fleming: I would think that the ministry and the institutions would reconcile funding to actual spaces created. Is that done semesterly or annually?

Hon. M. Coell: We wait for the audited FTE to come out, but the institutions probably track, as the member said, twice a year — the semester system.

R. Fleming: Do you have any numbers that are the most recent — anything additional since the external independent audit was completed in December?

R. Fleming: When does the minister expect that those figures will be available?

R. Fleming: One of the things that was in the report that discussed the discrepancy between created spaces and funded spaces by the ministry was an assessment that there is weak risk management, both within the institutions that the university funds and within the ministry itself. The finding was basically that the risk management practices aren't adequate, and there are a number of recommendations that address this. Can the minister comment on this assessment, and then maybe describe risk management practices that may be underway to address the situation?

Hon. M. Coell: I think we touched on this before. One of the mitigation pieces is to do some reallocation where there aren't the seats being created. We've had great cooperation from our partners in making those reallocations. It's one area where we had — I wouldn't say disagreement, I guess, but — a different opinion than the Auditor General, in that if you stopped funding the following year because someone didn't meet their target, you'd be punishing them for actually working and putting in place the classroom and the professor and the course.

We want to continue to fund those programs with the idea that they'll catch up. They are pretty small. Most of them are in the colleges. When you look at UBC and that, they are not lagging behind. They are functioning at more than 100 percent. Some of the percents are large — 80 percent or 85 percent. It's a small amount of students. When you look at the whole system, you have a system that's functioning at 100 percent of its capacity.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that. I think it's not just the universities that are picking up the slack, so to speak, but I think within the college system you have a wide variance between say a North Island and a Northern Lights.

One of the recommendations around the area of risk management that was very specific was around how funding of public post-secondary institutions is not adequately transparent in the view of the Auditor General, that it doesn't clearly show how much funding is being provided to meet and address the 25,000-space initiative and how much is covering inflationary pressures, which I think some administrators confided to the audit team they were in fact doing.

So I wonder if in light of the…. It's a serious recommendation that explains the difference between the spaces the ministry intends to create — is funding but, in fact, is not creating to that funding level.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there has to be some amount of trust between the ministry and its partners. If someone says they are going to create 100 seats and we fund them 100 seats, we expect them to create that. But we also don't want to penalize them if it takes them at little bit longer to create them and actually have bodies in those seats.

We have developed a more comprehensive reporting system through the central data warehouse that should help us track…. And we will work with them. If they say, "Well, we initially said we could provide 100, but now we can only create 50," we'll take those 50 and move them somewhere where they can actually find bodies for the seats and fund at the level where we had been funding and have an adjustment for that.

I think that there are a number of other new processes that we put in place after the Auditor General's report that will help. We enhanced the budget and accounting, the meetings. We do capital planning. We did a complete capital ten-year review, and we also do a prebudget consultation with all our partners, again, that we didn't do before. So I think there are some suggestions.

As I said, I welcome the Auditor General's reports. I think they make good suggestions for us. We need to follow them, and that's what we have been doing. But I think, in fairness, the Auditor General shows in the conclusions of it that he has confidence that we'll get to the 25,000 funded and 25,000 actual spaces. So I think the bottom line is that we're committed as government to fund 25,000 new spaces. Our partners are committed to filling those spaces, and we're well on our way to doing that.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister says they are well on their way to doing it. But we've been talking about numbers that show that the actual creation is not meeting the funding, and the funding is being used for something else. There are some issues around the funding formula and how this is clearly reported to people.

Earlier the minister was talking about one of the reasons why the results have been disappointing to date. The spaces aren't being taken up. He suggested that it was mostly to do with a buoyant economy.

One would think that, were that true, it would be regionally reflected. But we seem to see rural college enrolment declines almost everywhere, regardless of what the local rate of unemployment is.

Can the minister tell me if he has analysis or if his staff have provided research that shows there is something different at play here when it comes to rural college enrolment declines, and conversely, if they have an explanation as to why in the metro areas university enrolment is stronger? I think even in the metro areas there are differences there, too, between the community college growth, which has been negligible or even fairly anemic versus the better growth at the universities.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll give the member a couple of examples. Northern Lights College is down 18 students. So you're talking a large percentage, but you're talking 18 students. Whereas when you go to some of the bigger colleges, you're down 23 out of literally thousands in some of the colleges.

So I think we have to sort of temper the discussion with the number of new spaces that weren't filled. When you look at Northern Lights, 18 new spaces not filled, but it's a big percentage for that college because it has a very small number of students.

R. Fleming: In 2005-2006, the most recent year I think we have complete enrolment statistics for, there were 11 institutions that had shown enrolment declines. Does the minister have any indication if the list of 11 institutions continues, and could he also provide an indication of which universities have experienced enrolment declines and which institutes, if any — as well, just to break it out between the university colleges and colleges and those sectors?

Hon. M. Coell: I think what I'm going to do is just photocopy this list and make it available to the member in the next couple of minutes, and then we could probably have a better discussion.

I'll give you an example. BCIT is functioning at 126 percent of what their potential is, and you've got some functioning much lower than that. One we were just talking about was North Island. It's only functioning at 76 percent. I think this gives an idea of what they are functioning at, what they're exceeding their target by or where they're falling behind their target and then what they've got to make up between now and 2010. So I'll get the staff to go and ….

R. Fleming: Sorry, those numbers the minister used…. I'll take the photocopy in a moment. But were you saying that those are figures of funding, at $7,200 dollars per student, versus attendance? Is that what those numbers are?

R. Fleming: What I wanted to get at was the year-over-year, looking at institutions — there are 11 of them for 2005-2006 — that declined. A number of them are in the college sector.

As I was saying before, it doesn't seem to align with the minister's suggestion that it's happening in places where unemployment rates were the lowest or where the economy is the hottest. There is a decline at North Island College, for example, and there is a decline at the Capilano College in an urban area, while there is enrolment growth at University of B.C.

Presumably, in areas where there is more competition for students that are local to that area, there are different things happening. But what seems to be consistent is that in rural areas, regardless of what the regional economy is doing, there is declining enrolment.

I wonder if the minister could comment. That's what I'm interested in — that the year-over-year declines seem to be quite pervasive and seem to be in almost every corner of the province.

Hon. M. Coell: I think we talked briefly about this last night. One of the reasons, when you've got zero unemployment, is that you have places that are…. I believe that in Fort St. John they had to close a restaurant because they couldn't get employees, and they were paying about $20 an hour.

There are more opportunities out there than there have ever been in British Columbia for young people. It's also an opportunity to just pack up and move and go work in the northern part of B.C. and make a lot more money. So I think that that's the main reason you're seeing a drop in some of these areas.

That's not a reason for us to slow down. It's not a reason for us to penalize the institutions by taking funding away from them. I think it's incumbent on us to make sure that we have more people going through the K-to-12 system and more people going into college and university.

We have to be cognizant of the fact that we've never had a hotter economy in British Columbia in my lifetime or the member's lifetime. So we're bound to have some of these challenges, but they're certainly challenges I don't mind having.

R. Fleming: Well, no. I think the point I'm trying to get at here, though, is the enrolment is in decline at 11 institutions. It doesn't seem to matter what is happening, particularly, in that local economy. I think it's due to other factors.

Certainly, there are reports, both anecdotal and academic, that would suggest that the government's active discouragement of students in terms of the attractiveness of price…. We used to have the lowest tuition fees; we now have among the highest. We pay 15 percent more than other Canadians. And our student aid package is not as attractive as it once was when we had four years of grant programs.

People are doing cost-benefit analysis, perhaps, as the minister suggests, and going to school is not a good deal, as it once was. Perhaps that is some of the thinking.

Has the government tried to conduct its own research? Has it provided comments to the minister, perhaps, on other research that it has been apprised of on this trend to determine whether, as the Auditor General suggested, the tuition and the student aid reductions, in terms of the grant component, have formed an active disincentive to attend school?

Hon. M. Coell: I can give you just a couple of examples that might help. In '04-05 the College of the Rockies was at 85 percent, and in '05-06 it was 105 percent. Northern Lights in '04-05 was 81 percent, and in '05-06 it was 89 percent. They're actually doing what we were hoping they would do, that they would start to pick up as the years go on.

The other thing that we need to be cognizant of is that all across the country as the economy has improved, enrolment has softened. That is despite the different changes in tuition throughout the country as well. As the economy picked up in Canada, enrolment softened. We have lots of different tuition schedules in the different provinces, and there hasn't been a significant change or a significant factor of tuition as a cause for people not going to college or to university. I think it's more likely the hot economy.

R. Fleming: The minister keeps insisting on this. The question was about whether the ministry has done the right thing to avail itself of the proper research to show if there are other factors at play here, like the dramatically increased price of education in this province and the corresponding decline in affordability mechanisms that are means-tested and geared towards low- and middle-income students, like the grants programs that were eliminated.

On that question, does the minister have that kind of research? Is it being conducted for him? Has he gathered it from the institutions? I know, and I mentioned yesterday, that in 2003 there were studies done that showed students were quitting their studies because of tuition fee increases. Do you have anything more current, and have you availed yourself of that — or directed that it be done?

Hon. M. Coell: We have a number of national studies that are in the public domain. We talked about this a bit earlier, but maybe we could expand on it. In the studies that are being done you can show correlation, but it's pretty hard to show causation without a scientific study in a randomized fashion. What we've done, because we've seen the correlation of a hot economy and downturn all across the country, is say to ourselves: how do we keep more students in grades 10, 11 and 12? How do we keep more students involved in apprenticeships, and how do we keep them going forward into post-secondary?

We had talked about one that I mentioned. I did get a copy, and I'll make sure the member gets it right now. It's called Perspectives, which was through a grant from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and ourselves, working with students to try and encourage grades 10, 11 and 12 students to get interested in post-secondary education and plan towards that. I'll hand that over to the member.

We're in a political place here. It's more of a political discussion as to what the causes and effects are of a hot economy. I think there's pretty common agreement across the country that as the economy has heated up, and we've seen a flattening of enrolment across the country. When you look at each different province, they have different tuition, and they're all experiencing the same thing. There's only one thing that's fairly consistent. It's the hot economy, and ours is the hottest.

R. Fleming: It would be nice to determine causation, and I think the minister should do that. I note that in Alberta this year something like 13,000 students were turned away from post-secondary institutions in Calgary. Now, that is definitely a hot economy. The unemployment rate…. It's probably one of one or two provinces where it's currently below ours. I just don't quite buy the answers.

I think there needs to be some responsibility here. Unfortunately, in this budget there was no policy creativity around looking at accessibility issues to maybe provide incentives to address what seems to be an increasing disinterest in advanced education or disincentive to attend it, because we see declining enrolment in every region of the province — at 11 out of 22 institutions, in fact.

I think the government would be wise — if in fact it doesn't have this policy advice available to it, and I'm

surprised it doesn't — to apprise itself of some of these disincentives on the financial side, because B.C. is now on the high side of the price category for advanced education and on the low side of the study incentives and its relation to softening enrolment.

Certainly, the Auditor General put causation to those factors. When the government announced its seat expansion, it was at exactly the same time that they were doing these things to student financial aid and to tuition.

Maybe I can move on to the one student assistance program that the government has created, if you want to call it a student assistance program, and that is the baby bonus. The minister will remind me of its proper name. It's the $1,000 scheme that is for new babies born in British Columbia that I think started January 1, 2007.

Can the minister tell me what policy advice he received that led him to contemplate — and advocate, presumably — and to launch this program?

Hon. M. Coell: I wouldn't mind spending some time talking about it, but it's really the Ministry of Finance that is responsible for this. If the member wants to talk about it, I will, but it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance.

R. Fleming: I would like to talk about it, because it is seen as an Advanced Education initiative. It's for use in B.C. institutions. It is now, I guess, a birthright of children born in British Columbia.

Could he tell me, then…? It originated with the Ministry of Finance. There was no involvement of Advanced Education in its contemplation? Can you tell me how the $1,000 amount was arrived at?

Hon. M. Coell: Any of the details you'd have to talk to the Minister of Finance about, as it's her responsibility. What I can tell you from our perspective, and why I support it, is that for far too long you'd ask a hundred parents whether their child was going to go to university or college, and 80 percent of them would say yes. Then you'd find out that nowhere near that many went to college or university or any post-secondary education.

This is something that will hopefully change parents' attitudes, as now they've all got a stake in post-secondary education. Granted, it's a long way off from the birth of their child. I think what we need to do is to do a range of products that actually change the mindset of parents so that they see post-secondary education is something they should push their children to. This is just one tool, I think, in a big toolbox of changing the mindset of parents.

I'm being fairly high level because it's not my responsibility to administer the program. It's a sort of seeing of the first generation of learners. I think that a strong predictor of post-secondary education is how your parents treat you, and how they treat your goals and ambitions when you're young. This is just one tool.

R. Fleming: Was $1,000 picked because it's seen as a significant amount in today's dollars, or because it would be a significant amount in 2025 dollars, which would probably be when the first cohort of 18-year-olds would be able to redeem it?

Hon. M. Coell: I think $1,000 is a lot of money today, and I suspect that with interest it'll be a lot of money in the future. I know the member and his wife just missed this with their child, and it's not retroactive.

R. Fleming: I do confess we did look into it. There is no bitterness by me personally on that. I am strictly inquiring on a policy basis. There is no self-interest in this, this afternoon.

Well, I would differ with the minister. I don't think $1,000, though, is a lot of money today in terms of how many courses it would buy in a semester at current tuition fee rates. It may have bought a few more just a few short years ago, but it's not a significant amount.

Maybe the minister can tell me what the interest rate is estimated to be, but I don't think it will significantly accrue by 2025. I'm just wondering if he can give any insight where that number came from.

Hon. M. Coell: Prime is at 6 percent now, so we'd just add that out over the years. It should make a significant difference to the $1,000. I think $1,000 is a lot of money. I think that's enough to get some parents talking about: "Well, we've got this in the bank already. Maybe we should save some more. Maybe we should look…."

As British Columbians, we need to put more people through grade 12 and into post-secondary education. I just view this as one tool. It's a positive tool. It's one, granted, that's a long-range-thinking tool, that's for sure.

R. Fleming: Let me just dwell on the interest rate for a moment. Prime is the borrowing rate. Unless this is being invested somewhere that has a pretty good rate of return…. Do you know the rate of interest that this program is budgeted to accrue at?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't. That would be something that the Minister of Finance could answer for you. But it does complement the federal programs that are coming out as well. There's a whole bunch of emphasis on starting to think about post-secondary education when your child is born, both at the federal and the provincial level. I hope to see more of them.

R. Fleming: Maybe the minister can tell me, though, the amount that it will cost annually in the budget, and also tell me whether it's a contribution that the government makes annually for the next 18-plus years, because I'm just trying to get a handle on how it works.

The thing about funding programs like this one, even if it is by the Minister of Finance, it is sort of in

this ministry's area. It does represent a choice made for investment in students, albeit not the students of today, but — I guess the government will argue — the students of well into tomorrow. I want to get a handle on it, in a sense of how much money the government has committed to this program versus…. Start there.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have the details of that with me, but I know the Minister of Finance will. An example of any investment in post-secondary education, whether it's building a new UBC or a new UNBC or investing in a program like this, I think, is positive. I think there are many things that we need to do to encourage people to think post-secondary, and this is just one.

As I say, the federal government is moving into this direction. I think you're seeing other provinces considering it as well. All across the country, we're going to have to see more people move into post-secondary education to fill the skilled jobs that we'll have in the next couple of decades.

R. Fleming: Is the minister saying, then, that they don't have any information about this program, any background around birth rates and such, that led to any of the calculation for this program? There was no cross-collaboration with either the Premier's office or the Minister of Finance?

Hon. M. Coell: Finance ran the numbers, did the calculations and came up with the $1,000. There are some in the blue book and also the budget summaries. There are some numbers in there as well, but I'm sure the Ministry of Finance would be more than happy to discuss it with the member.

The Chair: Member, may I ask you…. I think the minister has made it quite clear that the specifics are in the Finance department. Could you…?

I will direct those questions elsewhere. I think it's clear that perhaps it didn't include your ministry, because it certainly isn't really a student debt reduction initiative, an access initiative for students or anything like that.

I just want to go back again to a recommendation that deals with creating spaces, tracking them over time, monitoring their success and providing the public with accountability around the 25,000-spaces initiative. I'll just read the recommendation to the minister, and he can maybe provide some comments and get some advice on how this recommendation has been received and acted upon. The recommendation was that the ministry lead and collaborate with all of B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions to develop a coordinated response for remediating combined factors that contribute to softening post-secondary student enrolments.

Hon. M. Coell: I covered a bit of this last night, but I've got a couple more examples of what we're doing, in sort of putting together a number of teams. We've got a system, what we would call a collaboration team, in the north — with our staff, the schools, the colleges and UNBC — who sit together to try to figure out how we can keep more students in school at the K-to-12 level — how to finish more. We're seeing an increase in the graduation rate of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. Then I shared with the member the Perspectives video and workbook that is part of the planning 12 system in the schools.

We're collecting data from students and the outcomes of surveys to help recruit, to find out what's more relevant. The other thing I mentioned was the creation of over a hundred new degrees and of literally thousands more apprenticeship positions as well. We want to do a couple of other things: to make post-secondary more relevant to students; to be willing to change and to create new programs; and to make campuses more welcoming, especially for aboriginal students. We've got a whole program that we'll roll out over the next three years on providing funds to the institutions to just make the campuses more welcoming for aboriginal students.

So there are a number of things that we've undertaken to do, all designed with the idea of creating an atmosphere within the post-secondary system that will not only attract more but will actually keep more. We talked yesterday, too, about the dropout rate after first year. What do we and our partners, the institutions, need to do to make sure those students don't drop out? Those are the sorts of things we're doing to address that recommendation from the Auditor General.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that answer, and I think the collaborative teams that your ministry has established, in working with the school districts in particular, sounds like a very good way to address softening student enrolment. The minister mentioned that this was in the north of the province, clustered around UNBC and, I guess, the College of New Caledonia.

Are there any other parts of the province where you are doing this which also have softened enrolment?

Hon. M. Coell: This is seen as a pilot. We started with the north and it covers Northwest and Northern Lights as well. So we see this expanding into the entire province.

The other thing we've done is sponsored a couple of meetings where you have all the presidents of all the universities, colleges, and then all the superintendents of all the school boards meet just to have a few initial meetings to try and see where they can move on programs like this. I think in the Victoria area, there's a pretty good example at Camosun where you can actually take some courses at Camosun while you're in high school. Those are the sorts of things that we're moving and working on collaboratively with the Ministry of Education.

R. Fleming: I'd like to ask a couple of questions, again, on the funding formula. I've mostly been focus-

ing on the discussion that's in the Auditor General's report, which is sort of an argument and a case for transparency — if the space is an issue, and if it's going to be successful. We simply can't have institutions getting funding and, in fact, not creating the spaces that are a part of government's overall commitment.

One of the things that's discussed at length in that report is around the block funding model that the ministry uses. This is also something that I know the ministry commissioned its own report on, the Perrin report, in two parts: for colleges and for the university sector.

So maybe I could ask a few questions around the Perrin report. I know it relates and covers the same ground as the Auditor General's report, but there's a different set of recommendations, obviously — a different report.

The report says that the Advanced Education Ministry and post-secondary institutions should do joint work to develop better measurements and reporting of student demand in various program areas. Can you tell me what that recommendation has meant, what work has been undertaken as a result of it, and what steps, basically, the ministry is taking?

Hon. M. Coell: We're beginning to work with the sector to do a review of the funding formula. We purposely didn't want to get too far down the road until Campus 2020 was out, and then we'd see what the recommendations were in that report as well. That was a pretty thorough discussion of the sector itself.

So we're willing and moving down that road to do a review of funding formulas. We're also looking at different provinces — what they do — to bring back something probably within the next 12 months.

R. Fleming: And this is focused on improving measurements, and it's focused on a reporting framework. Is that the main outcome contemplated?

Hon. M. Coell: It's more the funding formula. I think our accounting formula and the changes made in the central data bank are working well. I think the criticism of the funding formula is probably more in the college system.

We're going to work with the entire sector over the next 12 months to review that in light of the Perrin report, the Auditor General's report and, as I say, waiting shortly to see Campus 2020 — whether there are some recommendations out of there. We can lump the three groups together and go forward with that.

R. Fleming: Is this, then, going to be regionally based or is it a sectoral kind of approach or a blend of both?

Hon. M. Coell: We're going to be consulting with the entire sector before we make that decision. Once we've talked to them as to what the analysis should be, we'll put that in place and then do the analysis.

R. Fleming: Another area of the Perrin report is discussion around the transparency of that formula. It recommends that funding decisions should indicate what inflationary costs are at play, which ones are being covered by the ministry and the service implications of funding.

We talked very briefly a little bit earlier about the existence of a higher-education price index and where that typically falls in relation to the general rate of inflation in the economy. I wonder if the minister could just comment about this recommendation, which again gets at having a more transparent funding formula that's easily understood as to which costs are picked up by the ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the areas in looking at Perrin and the Auditor General's report is that transparency…. When you look back 20 or 30 years, there have been a number of different ways to fund institutions. Some have been less transparent than others.

I think probably what we have attempted to do in the last four or five years is sort of fund seats rather than programs. Sometimes it was programs in the past. Then the sector said: "We would like to be funded by seats. We think that's more fair."

I think you have to be willing to review things periodically, and we've been using this formula. Some parts of the sector are saying that they'd like to have it reviewed, and I'm certainly open to doing that.

R. Fleming: Well, indeed. The review is done now, presumably, so it is time for looking at action on some of these recommendations. That's kind of what I'm trying to get from the minister here, because this budget projects for the next three fiscal years. So it would be nice to know and get as solid an indication as possible whether there are going to be changes.

There have been lots of reviews done about the advantages and disadvantages of different models. Clearly, we have a lot of evidence about why the block funding model has some deficiencies. It has not been ideal for tracking and transparently reporting on the creating of new spaces. When it comes to looking at what is funded on an inflationary basis and what institutions can anticipate getting for their core budgets, there are also deficiencies and discussion in that report.

The minister knows, and he mentioned it yesterday, that education costs tend to rise more quickly than the general economy. He pointed out the large amount of money that goes to fund wages. This is a human resource–intensive sector, obviously, so that's not a surprise.

Has the minister then considered looking at creating an inflationary threshold like a higher-education price index for use in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: That actually isn't something the ministry could do. It's something Treasury Board would do annually. One of the things Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance did for us is to say that they would cover 100 percent of the costs of the wage settlements. The college sector, of course, has just settled. Their costs will be totally covered, as well, and

that's about 75 percent of the increased costs to the universities. They also have some tuition room, which is, as we talked about, about $14 million that they could bring into the system to overcome inflation as well.

We're always willing to listen to our partners. I think that, as I said, over the next three years there's about 309 million new dollars going into the system — that's over and above the 100 percent of the wages that are covered — and the capital pieces on top of that again.

One of the things that has changed, I guess, in probably the last decade or so is that the federal government funds a number of projects we have talked about that are possibly running out of funds and need to be reinvigorated. We'll be working with them to make sure they keep putting money into the system as well.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the part of the answer there that describes how in the absence of having an index governing this ministry, they are managing to meet some of the major drivers on costs — advanced education, wage settlements, etc.

The minister suggested that it wouldn't be permissible, or something to that effect, to have a HEPI-type formula, but surely, couldn't the ministry work with institutions to look at a funding model that had a HEPI quotient to it, at least as the basis for its Treasury Board submissions? I mean, I know you don't always get what you ask for, but certainly, it could be a strong rationale on funding requests.

Hon. M. Coell: We're not ruling that out. We're open to those sorts of situations when we discuss with our partners.

R. Fleming: Outside of the Perrin report, has the ministry received information from other jurisdictions that have adopted a HEPI-type budgeting tool? I know that some of the U.S. states are using it. I'm not aware whether other provinces are. Has the minister received any advice favourable or unfavourable to this idea, based on other experiences?

Hon. M. Coell: We're going to be talking to the other provinces about their funding formulas during the review process. I think some of them fund 100 percent of the wages; some of them don't fund 100 percent of the wages. It's trying to find something that everyone can agree on when everyone is looking at apples and oranges. So we'll have to do that as well.

I think that we want to make a system that works for the colleges and the universities and the institutes. They're all a bit different. They all have different makeups of programs and different makeups of financial needs. So we're going to sit down and work with them over the next 12 months to look at some of the requests they made to Dan Perrin as well as the Auditor General's reports.

R. Fleming: Well, just picking up on the latter part of the minister's answer, where he said that institutions are obviously different from one another…. Has the government, in light of this part of the Perrin report, considered ensuring that institutions receive the same annual base adjustment for inflation — not just the ones that have capacity to increase their own core revenues through tuition increases and through other means?

Hon. M. Coell: Just to simplify it for the member, there is no institution that has received less money this year than they did last year.

R. Fleming: Could the minister tell me just at this time of the 22 institutions, how many…?

R. Fleming: Twenty-six. Thank you, Deputy Minister. Of the 26 institutions, how many of them received the same funding level? Are there 26 funding levels then for 26 institutions, or are there four because there are four different types of institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: I have that information. If the member would just give me a moment, I'll get it.

For '07-08…. What I think I'm going to do is do the same and photocopy this, and just give the member a list. They're all getting more money. There's no one getting less money, but what it does is it gives you the projection that they had from '06-07, the projection from '07-08 and then the increase or decrease. It gives you all 26, and I'll have that photocopied and give it to you later.

R. Fleming: Is some of that funding…? It is different per institution. You've said that next year, you know, they're being increased or decreased by different amounts. I think what we see in this sector is that some of these funding amounts seem to be just historic and perpetuated. I don't know if that's a fair comment or not.

Are there factors at play here in terms of an institution's funding level that take into account the population served? Of course, when we're talking about B.C. rural colleges, we're talking about places with many, many campuses — in some cases more than a dozen. A funding formula should be flexible enough to not just look at per-student amounts, but also look at the amount of buildings and maybe even the temperature of the region, those kinds of things, and infrastructure costs that are different, because obviously dispersed campuses don't have a centralized efficiency and economy of scale that other ones can have. Is that something the funding formula takes into account?

Hon. M. Coell: Historically, there have been a number of different funding formulas. The strategic investment plan that we put forward actually took into consideration most of the comments that the member's made about the demographics, the city, the needs and those sorts of things. A good example is some of the

strategic investment plan where we wanted nursing and medical spaces, electrical engineering spaces and those sorts of things. There was a departure from block funding to FTE funding and then taking into consideration some of the areas that the member suggested.

R. Fleming: So in effect, in some cases, funding is being altered because it's being driven by new programs. I know that for medical students, just as an example, you strategically wanted to have some of that in the north at UNBC so that presumably an outcome would be that a rural shortage of doctors would be addressed. Is it colleges looking for new programs as a means to increase their funding? Is that one way that they can achieve that?

I know the minister's already said that they're in the process of reallocating many of these new spaces, which does have financial implications for the institutions. It does affect the predictability of their funding, etc. Maybe the minister could comment.

Hon. M. Coell: I can give the member a few examples. The reallocation, as I mentioned — I think it was last evening — is only in the matter of a few hundred at this point. There hasn't been the need to take very many seats away from any one institution and reallocate them, but some of them are being reallocated because of need too.

There are courses that just weren't getting the interest that they should have, but there were huge waiting lists in other areas. So the colleges, to their credit, have actually said: "Well, if we move these 20 or 30 seats from here over to here, they'll actually get full. They weren't going to be filled in our institution."

But what we've done is we haven't taken the funding away from those institutions at this point. What we've done is left a buffer there. If they had had expenses…. Some of them hadn't. They just said: "Well, we're not going to be able to fill these places. We haven't done anything. You can move these, and it doesn't create a problem for us."

There are a number of impacts on the reallocation, and as I said, no institution — and I'll get the member that list of institutions — will receive less funding than they did in 2006. Maybe once you've got that, we could have a discussion — if not today, tomorrow.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I would appreciate that because I know that a lot of colleges and the association that represents college presidents likes to talk about dollar per capita for the region, and there are some very strong historic inequities that lead some regions to get twice as much per person in that population area as in another.

The situation has gone on for a very long time, and some of these regions would like very much to pursue new programs, which would, of course, attract new funding. They have to coordinate that with the ministry, and they haven't been successful. North Island is one that comes to mind that has a lot of marine technology capacity programs that I think have gone unfunded in recent years — or just the proposals have not advanced to curricula stage.

I wanted to ask just on the higher education price index again, one more time. One of the advantages that its proponents like is that….

R. Fleming: It's higher than inflation — yes. Two, recognize that the costs are as well…. But I guess it allows administrators that they don't have to make very difficult decisions that in some cases sacrifice a quality because they are dealing with higher-cost drivers than the rest of the economy. That leads to difficult decisions around programs, program cuts, the quality of programs. How many people are in a class is just one example of how quality might be determined.

Are those things that the minister has considered, too, in his discussion with the stakeholders that he interacts with around the lobbying, I guess, that's going on for consideration of a HEPI-type funding formula?

Hon. M. Coell: It's an option we're looking at. Depending on how you calculate the HEPI formula, it could be as much as 5 percent or it could be as little as 0.5 percent. Then, of course, there is the argument within the different sectors as to what you should add in and what you shouldn't add in. It's hard to get exactly what it would be, but it's an option we're looking at.

R. Fleming: I'm sure the minister…. Should he pursue it further and implement it, it will be a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't approach from those proponents. I'm sure of that.

I want to ask another question about a recommendation in the Perrin report. I'll just read the recommendation and ask the minister to comment on it, on what actions he's taken on it. It was suggested by Mr. Perrin that "the ministry shift from the sole reliance on actual as compared to mandated FTEs as the primary performance indicator and the basis for funding decisions and comparisons."

The argument is: "This shift would be towards funding of capacity, with growth funding limited to situations of excess demand and shifting of targets from current mandated FTEs to FTE targets based on measured FTE capacity."

Has the minister responded to this part of the review, and does he have any biases he wishes to share on how he might do that?

Hon. M. Coell: It's interesting that that's almost the opposite of what the Auditor General recommended. We're actually looking at both of them and considering both of them seriously. I think they were both made with obviously good intentions. Both of the sugges-

R. Fleming: When the minister keeps saying review, I just want to get this clear. There was an independent external review, and then there was a contracted review. So when you say review, you mean…

The report also says: "Institutions also require an increased ability to adjust their own programming to meet changing needs in the community." It recommends three mechanisms to deal with that issue. Maybe I'll ask the minister to comment on these.

It says: "Each institution should be provided with an increase to its base funding level equal to 1 percent of its core revenue to provide capacity to adjust its programs, with a requirement to demonstrate that it's at least the amount that has been spent."

This seems like a good efficiency to adjust to the changing skills need around the province. It would give them that assurance to be able to do that. Is it being considered by the ministry?

Hon. M. Coell: With regard to those comments, what we did for the college sector is that in December we shipped $21.7 million to them, looking at last year, as a one-time funding for the phase 2 institutions. What we're going to do is review that situation with the Campus 2020 and, also, the ministry's internal review, taking into consideration that where we go forward after the next 12 months might be different than that. We're not sure whether it will be an increase or just the same.

R. Fleming: So $21 million is quite a bit less than the 1 percent that the report recommends.

I want to ask about another recommendation that I think is quite novel in the report. It suggests that the ministry create a fund of up to $2.5 million per year to be made available to fund proposals from two or more institutions to collaborate in the delivery of programs. The funding would be one-time funding to cover the costs of planning and implementing the collaboration.

That seems like the kind of thing…. It's not very expensive, but having a fund like that, and having your administrators at the 26 institutions aware of it, could lead to creativity and innovation and collaboration between institutions.

I think it was planned that the Great Northern campus…. It was the ministry that took the lead on that, but there are opportunities here to fill niches in the labour market and where there is training demand from the students themselves.

Is the minister considering looking at an integrated approach like this and creating a special fund like that?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the areas where we've created some special funds is the aboriginal special projects fund — the aboriginal service plans and also the ASIP programs. Those are all new funding sources for the system. They're set up as separate funds, but I think our pilot project with the north, with the school districts and the universities and colleges, is an area that we can start to look at special project funds.

That's not new to the ministry. It's done that before. These are new projects, but that has been used before in the ministry.

R. Fleming: I guess this is a fund just to look at planning the implementation of the collaboration. Then they come back to the ministry and ask you to fund it, and that's how it would work.

It's $2½ million. You can obviously see where you would have interesting health care programs delivered in rural areas in collaboration with the university, for example. I know that it exists to some extent. I can think of Selkirk's nursing program in collaboration with UVic.

There are certain labour market areas where if there were a fund just to cover the costs of planning it and then try to convince the minister it's worthwhile.… Would the minister consider having something like that available to administrators at the 26 institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: I take it from that that the member is in favour of something like that, so I'll take it under advisement.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I do speak in favour of the recommendation. I know it's on your desk now. I think I've asked you to comment on it as much as is probably reasonable, so thank you for that.

There is another recommendation in there which suggests that an additional $300,000 base funding should be provided to each rural college to provide them with capacity; to be consistent with quality, I guess, at urban colleges and university colleges; and to cover student and institutional support costs.

Is this being considered in light of the declining enrolment that we've discussed at rural colleges?

Hon. M. Coell: That was one of the reasons that we moved $21.7 million into the sector in December — to address that recommendation.

R. Fleming: Oh, it was one-time. Okay, I think this is the recommendation around base funding so that it's predictable and throughout each year of your service plan.

You've done it for this year. Is it something that could feasibly recur and could become part of the base funding — that you would in fact meet or exceed this recommendation?

Hon. M. Coell: It was put out to cover last year, and while we do the review this year, that would be under consideration.

R. Fleming: I want to ask a couple of things about capital projects at the various campuses, and maybe just a general question about…. Are capital projects being built with consideration to the operating deficits that we're seeing at some of the major institutions? I'm thinking of UBC, although it is among other universities. UNBC is another. They're facing major operational deficits, yet they're being funded to expand. Does this present a problem to the minister in any way?

Hon. M. Coell: We talked briefly about capital costs. One of the things I'm very pleased with is the amount of capital expansion: the number of buildings, and the number of buildings that are coming in on budget, on time. Most of them are LEED buildings as well, which is important to the ministry.

When we do our three-year plans and they do ten-year capital plans — and the Ministry of Finance asked us to do a ten-year capital plan review as well — one of the things is that each separate institution…. When they come forward with, let's say, a new engineering building at UVic or UBC, they present us with a business case. They've considered the capital costs, the operating costs and how it will be funded. If there's new growth — let's say it's a new program and it's part of the strategic investment plan — then they would be funded for increased seats as well.

R. Fleming: I know the minister is proud of the new buildings going up. There's some great construction going on for the future. Nevertheless, at these institutions with deficits, you do have this curious phenomenon where you have programs being cut and fewer students being allowed to enrol in certain areas. In some cases, longstanding programs are being either eliminated for a year or permanently reduced, hypothetically, and you have the spectacle of brand-new buildings getting constructed. You have fewer professors. I know there are significant layoffs of 50 at UNBC.

I want to ask the question again, which is around…. Is there special consideration for capital programs at universities that have operating deficits?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the two that the member mentions — and I'm aware of both of them as well, UBC and UNBC — both believe they can manage their potential deficits this year. I think it's not unreasonable to see any of our institutions change direction.

I know it's difficult once programs are in place and they've been in place for a number of years and then a new program comes on. They start to attract more students, and fewer students go into a program, and the board and the administration have to say: "We should cancel this program and do two courses of this program over here." So it makes a change within the system.

I think that's what you're seeing in some instances. It's part of healthy growth. I know it is difficult for staff when that happens, but I think you'll find that both UBC and UNBC, because of the size of operations, the changes they need to make are pretty minor in the scope of their overall budgets.

R. Fleming: One of the things that I suppose some administrators would consider a mixed blessing…. They obviously all advocate for new buildings. I know that not just more classroom space, but better-quality teaching and learning space is in demand, and that's where these capital priorities come from. Sometimes they wait a very long time indeed to actualize them.

When you have operating deficits, as is the case at UBC and UNBC, buildings are still being built while programs are being cut on the one hand. Once those buildings are operational, you have costs associated with running them. They cost money per square foot, and I wonder if the minister could tell me how he is engaging with university presidents at the indebted institutions that are in the red here with additional challenges to deficits because of new building costs.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the simple answer is that UBC and UNBC identify some problems in years out and wish to fix them now, which they're doing. Once any of our institutions identify the need for a new building, whether it's a replacement building — as in what's going on at UBC, more than anyone else, because of its hundred-year age — they make a base-case scenario and a business plan that says: "We'll replace this building with this one. Here's the cost. Will you fund it?"

We'll work it all out with them, and it doesn't start to get built until we've agreed with them that the business case works. I don't want to go over it again, but I think it's healthy for them to be able to say: "I think that we need to make some changes to make our books balance."

For both institutions, in the scheme of their budgets, these are quite small numbers that they have to deal with, and I'm very confident that they'll meet their targets and that their books will balance at the end of the year.

R. Fleming: Well, I mean, when the business case was made for these buildings…. Sometimes many, many years can go by before the approval is reached. I think there has been a shift in context here, and I wonder if the minister could comment on that. Have there been special funding requests from either UBC or UNBC?

Let's deal with UBC first, where they have new buildings coming on stream, where they have operating costs attached to those buildings, too, and they're in a deficit position. To be able to open those buildings…. I know government goes there and cuts the ribbon, but the institution has to deal with the situation that they find themselves in. Have there been additional requests for funding to deal with the increasing building costs?

Hon. M. Coell: There haven't been at this point. I think the reason being is that the business case for any of the buildings or capital projects has been made. There's a contingency in there. They're all coming in on budget, and as I say, they're to the LEED standard, most of them. I think the areas where both UNBC and UBC are having some challenges are in programming areas and some of the other areas that aren't necessarily a new building cost. You know, the change in heating an old building to heating a new building in some cases is actually cheaper.

R. Fleming: Well, maybe, but when you have both the old building and the new building operating, you've got additional costs.

I have some other questions about capital projects, and it has to do with the announcement that the Premier made last November, I believe it was, that every building in British Columbia that has provincial tax dollars attached to it worth over $20 million has to be vetted and reviewed and, I guess, administered, in a way, by Partnerships B.C. Can the minister confirm that this includes campuses in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: It does apply to our ministry, and we've been working with the sector to go through how and why that would be the case. The residents, for example, at…. Thompson Rivers is a P3 up and running, and then it turns back to the university at a later date and becomes their property. But it was done as a P3, actually, at their initiative. UCFV is also, at their initiative, proposing to do a few as well.

I can see in the future there will be a mix of some. I think where it makes sense, we should do it. Where it doesn't make sense…. Camosun College, their new sports facility, went through a P3 review, and it was decided that they would go ahead and build it themselves. So I think you'll see a mix.

R. Fleming: The projects that the minister cited were before this mandate change. What concerns me is that administrations now have no choice in the matter. They are required to go through Partnerships B.C. Can the minister confirm that that is the new reality: that institutions no longer guide their capital projects; they must do it through Partnerships B.C.? Is that a change that you have had to, I guess, deliver that message to administrators in B.C.?

Hon. M. Coell: Basically, what we want to ensure is that all projects go under that lens and are looked at. I think if we can save some money and make a better product, it's worthwhile. If it's decided you can't, there are other ways to fund. Long-term funding through the ministry is generally the fallback position, but I think it's worthwhile having a look.

Some of the ones that we didn't initiate were initiated by, as I say, Thompson Rivers University and the University College of the Fraser Valley. Those came from them to us. So I think there are some options out there. In the past you saw that every building on every campus was built and paid for by the government. I shouldn't say that. Student union buildings are owned by student unions. So there are other options out there that I think are worthwhile to look at.

R. Fleming: My concern is that we're actually reducing the options, because now Partnerships B.C. really has a monopoly on campus capital planning. That is the result of this initiative. I recall the rationale the government used a few years ago to allow the deregulation of tuition fees, which was that this was a government that believed in more institutional autonomy.

Can the minister confirm for me that when it comes to capital planning, that in fact today, as a result of this announcement, there is less institutional autonomy around how they plan their building expansion?

Hon. M. Coell: I wouldn't agree with that. I would think that the capital planning process is still the same. But when they come forward, we'll jointly take a project to Partnerships B.C. and have them vet it and give us some advice as to how would be the best and cheapest way of paying for it. So I don't see it changing the planning process at all.

R. Fleming: Does Partnerships B.C. just vet building expansion proposals, or do they actually derive consulting fees on advising and implementing projects?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't see much difference there. The institutions have always had to hire consultants to do the business case, to build the architectural drawings and even to do construction management. Very few of them, other than a couple of the major universities, have that capability.

What will happen is in sort of a ten-year planning horizon, you might have three or four projects. As they come forward, we would take them, get some recommendations back from Partnerships B.C. and then move on from there. But I only see that this can possibly save money and enhance projects.

I don't think you're going to see a project come forward and Partnerships B.C. say: "Here's the most expensive option. You should do that." I think there is an option that they'll say: "Here's an option that will save you some money. You can either put that money back into the building and make a better building out of it or save the money." That's just an option we've got.

I realize there's some controversy around P3s, but every time I see one, I'm getting more and more con-

vinced that it's a good idea myself. When you're doing a parking lot at a university, who should pay for the parking lot? Should the taxpayer or should a P3? Then we can take the money that we would have spent on a parkade and put it into an academic building.

Those sorts of choices are out there. I think it will be positive, and I'm willing to give it a chance.

R. Fleming: I guess what I'm getting at, though, is the differences that…. Previously at TRU, which did its residences through a P3, they were able to go out and do their own RFP, do their own process around evaluating that. My concern now is that they have no choice. Now they have to use Partnerships B.C.

Government is now involved, maybe to a greater extent than they were before, because they're tied to the interests of Partnerships B.C. So there is a reduction and a loss of control in institutional autonomy on how they may wish to proceed on their capital projects.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the bottom line for me is that they are using public money, so we should be getting the best possible deal we can. If this is a way of ensuring that, I think we should move ahead on it.

R. Fleming: Well, Partnerships B.C. has used public money as well, but now they rely on consulting fees and project administration costs. I think what the fear out there is…. First of all, university campuses are different than maybe other areas because you can't strata that land. There are only certain ways you could configure a P3, and there is a much-reduced range of choices.

Now the university, if we're talking about a university, has no choice but to use Partnerships B.C. Partnerships B.C. gets to evaluate whether a P3 is appropriate, and then they get to be involved with the project itself and derive revenue from it. Is that the case?

Hon. M. Coell: Not in all cases, and I think the example of that would be the Camosun College project that they had a look at. It went ahead with government borrowing, and we put more money into it from the ministry.

A good example of P3s is probably UBC. It's been doing it for a long time. They've actually got a residence and long-term, 90-year leases on their property. They've been working with the private sector on residence, and they're quite involved with Partnerships B.C., again, on a number of projects. It seems to be, I wouldn't say second nature to UBC, but because it had so much development on their property and so much private sector money put on the property with, as I say, long-term leases that come back to the university in the future…. So there are a lot of different options out there that at first blush you don't see.

R. Fleming: I know that universities and campuses have a different way of doing things, and many of them have become very good public sector entrepreneurs and have had P3 arrangements before the term was even known. The point is taken there.

What I'm getting at now is that rather than allowing that in-house expertise or that business approach that they may have developed, they now have to surrender their capital planning autonomy to Partnerships B.C., which has an absolute monopoly on the planning of new buildings.

They report to the government, and if the government is going to contribute $20 million or more to this project, then it's Partnerships B.C. that has a lever here. I'm just asking the minister: how does this change manifest itself? Previously you had VPs at a university, for example, that would be in charge of capital planning. They would have a staff with expertise there. Is it the case that now, early on, before they even contemplate projects such as this over this threshold, that Partnerships B.C. is involved?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess for me — why would we rule it out as an option? The planning process is unchanged — sort of a last look at a project through Partnerships B.C. They have some skills and talents that not all of the colleges and universities have. So I view it as very much a positive thing. I think that not having that last look would be wrong at this stage in British Columbia's development.

R. Fleming: I think there's concern out there about the loss of control over capital planning and, also, the intrusiveness of what is in fact a monopolistic government agency that derives fees and revenues. It gets to both evaluate and promote to the government funder projects done under its own rubric. I think that is a problem, and it's a concern.

I would suggest to the minister that they haven't adequately communicated with administrators on the new changes and what the implications of those changes are. I think there's a lot of anxiety out there.

There are several MLAs that wish to ask questions relating to their constituency and some of the programs in institutions that serve them. So I will ask my colleague from Cariboo South, who has some questions for the minister, to take the floor.

C. Wyse: Having heard the first response, I wanted to acknowledge the visit that the minister made up to part of my riding just a few weeks ago to open up the campus of the Thompson Rivers University. He did a masterful job. We would be surprised if he had done anything less than that. It is a facility that the community is very proud of, and we're looking forward to the services that it will bring to our general area.

But it does lead around to some questions. The capacity for this particular building is huge compared to the existing enrolment. I know I'm not going to be telling the minister anything that he doesn't already know, but there are some issues in our area that if the training is provided locally to the local people, then we increase the chances of doing two things at the same time: we obtain the skills that are required, we get the force that we require to provide those services, and we also get the retention for those areas.

So that the minister is aware of where I'm coming from, I will have two very broad sets of questions — one around the Williams Lake campus because my riding is huge going down, so it is also served out of the Kamloops branch of TRU. There will be two general areas. As a refresher, I wrote the minister about two broad areas already. They are the care aid provider program as well as the early childhood education program. There is a third broad area of demonstrated need, and that is for paramedics in the part of the riding that I've described.

What I would like to do is to ask my first question of the minister: what plans does he and his staff have to encourage the enrolment increase back into the Williams Lake campus? There is no question that there are a variety of factors that come into play that have led to the declining enrolment. One of the significant factors — at least in many people's minds, mine included — has been the lack of a central location for the Williams Lake campus.

I would like if the minister would explain what he and his staff have in mind for encouraging increased enrolment on the Williams Lake campus.

Hon. M. Coell: I very much enjoyed the hospitality of your community. It was a great day. I think one of the issues with that campus is that it's probably a little over-built right now, but the fact that it was over-built allows the facility to grow. There was probably a decision made: do you scale it back and then have to build on, or do you actually just build it so that it will last for a few years?

I'm glad that decision was made because I think what'll happen is that it will start to generate from within. You may have low enrolment for a couple of years, but then when people start to realize that they actually have a university now in Williams Lake, all under one roof, that has the ability to have trades and an academic mix…. I think it's going to be a dynamic addition to Williams Lake.

I think that what TRU…. I talked to their board and their president, and I know the member has as well. They're looking as to how they can support that campus as it grows over the next five years. I can certainly say that I am very optimistic that that's going to…. I think it will change the face of Williams Lake over a decade.

One of the things that I've noticed over my short period as minister is that when you build an institution — whether it's in Victoria or Nanaimo or Williams Lake — it does tend to change the face of the community. It brings in different people, different ideas, your whole group — even international students, which I know Williams Lake is interested in — new faculty, people moving from around…. The first nations welcoming areas on the campus as well should help aboriginal people feel welcome and come to the campus.

I think that, from our perspective, you're looking at five-year pieces. I'm looking forward to going back there in five years and seeing a full building and seeing a dramatic change in Williams Lake as well.

C. Wyse: I very much appreciate, and would agree with, the comments the minister gave. That having been said, my question was more around the line of: specifically, what does his ministry have in mind to encourage and take advantage of the opportunities that TRU provides for Williams Lake?

Hon. M. Coell: Thanks again for that question. One of the things that Williams Lake…. I think it will be a great benefit to have a first nations aboriginal centre planned for that campus in a big way — not in any small way — because there are a great deal of aboriginal people in that area who we want to encourage to go to TRU in Williams Lake.

Some of the targeted funding programs…. I know you identified one of them as the residential care worker. That will be targeted and put in there as well as LPN and aboriginal access to aboriginal programming. Those are three areas that I know the ministry and TRU are targeting.

The other thing you mentioned is paramedics and early childhood, and those are board-related decisions, but we are working with them on that. Actually, after talking to the board in Williams Lake and the president and chair, I brought back some ideas that I have given staff to look at to help enhance that campus as well.

C. Wyse: What possibilities does the minister see for his office working jointly, through my office, to encourage the fulfilment of these ideas? I think the minister and I are very much on the same page on behalf of the community. We want to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented here, and I'm looking for some suggestions in this area for how the two offices will be able to complement and supplement each other.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the input. One of the things I have found in Williams Lake is that the entire community is on the same page as you and I, so that's a very nice position to be in.

I think the next five years for Williams Lake …. I think it's important that the people in Williams Lake work with TRU. One of the things, of course, is that TRU's main campus is in Kamloops. There is always a tendency that Kamloops will get more of an interest than Williams Lake.

The community of Williams Lake — with their MLA and their MP, and if the mayor and councillors were all there — will have to make a concerted effort to encourage TRU and the ministry to look more favourably at new programs as they become available, because you have the room in that building to do that.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the response. I take it very much under advisement in mutual responsibility. The concern identified by the minister surely is one that does exist in any type of working relationship like we're talking about, when you've got a larger centre and a smaller centre. I don't want to leave any impressions here that recognizing that fact is meant not to be supportive of the main campus also.

With that lead-in, I would like to shift to the southern part of Cariboo South, which primarily would look forward to going to the main campus for a variety of different services. In particular, I am going to estimate that about a third of my riding would be covered by the Thompson-Nicola regional district. In doing such, they likewise have written the minister with regards to a trade skills upgrading program on the main campus.

For the information of the minister, in Cariboo South there is a meat-processing operation in Lac la Hache. My office has been in support of this program being expanded on the Kamloops campus. The need for trades is identical right across the entire province.

I want to be very appropriate here and come back to my area of Cariboo South in giving that particular example. As a reminder for the minister, the TNRD indicated back in January the possibility of expansion for the trades program on the Kamloops campus through some joint projects along with the school district, facilities that the school district has.

My question, then, with that type of a background: could the minister provide me with an update on the status of that particular proposal?

Hon. M. Coell: I think probably about 15 months ago I met with the board of Thompson Rivers and the superintendent of the school district, and they had a proposal to use the north Kamloops high school as a joint facility for trades training. I believe they do culinary arts out of there right now, but they wanted to expand it.

Actually, by coincidence I met with some of the school trustees who were in town today. They're going to be putting in a joint proposal to the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education for funds to do some retrofitting of that school and to move some trades training into that school, which could be possibly funded through the three ministries. That's the proposal they are working forward with.

TRU has a trades component that is working through the system. We're also doing a provincewide review of trades training, just to see what trades have big lineups and what trades don't. I think we'll find there are probably big lineups in most of them, so there will be a need to do some expansion of trades training, which is in the Ministry of Economic Development's budget for increased trades training.

I'll keep the member apprised of that, because I know probably a fair amount of residents in your riding would use that campus as well.

C. Wyse: I would be negligent if I don't go now back to the Williams Lake campus of this area. I do want to be on record indicating my support, as the MLA, for the proposal that we are talking about. But I would be negligent if I also didn't draw to the minister's attention that there is likewise a growing trades program in the local high school in school district 27. I do want the minister to be aware of that. There will likely be proposals and what have you coming forward for support for that area.

In closing, I would like to advise the minister that if I haven't already sent a letter in support for what is going on in Kamloops, I apologize for that. I can't find it in my file, but that doesn't mean I didn't do it. I will ensure that it is done and that I'm on record for doing such.

In closing, I would like to thank the minister for his attention for these concerns that the citizens of Cariboo South have.

C. Trevena: I have a few questions for the minister about North Island College. The president of North Island College reminds me — and I'm sure he's reminded the minister — how large the area of North Island College is: it covers more than three MLAs' constituencies.

I know that my colleague from Victoria-Hillside was talking about funding for rural college education before, but I wanted a bit of a clarification. According to figures, North Island College actually does have the second-highest population, yet it has the lowest funding.

I wondered if the minister could explain why this is and also, possibly, give the college assurances that the funding will be increasing over the coming years.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a clarification. Everyone is funded on an FTE formula. Was the member saying it's the population of the greater area, and the number of seats available?

C. Trevena: Yes. I was talking about the population of the area, because we're talking from west coast through Port Alberni, up through Courtenay-Comox to Port Hardy and then over to the mainland as well.

Hon. M. Coell: Earlier the critic and I were talking about the review that we're doing of the funding formula. We've had the Auditor General's comments on funding. We've also had the Perrin report make some recommendations on funding formulas and some suggestions from the college sector that differ from the university sector. That will be part of that.

I'm aware that North Island College is also doing a review. Probably last year in estimates, as I recollect, we talked about the North Island Post-Secondary Education Committee that had done a partial report — I guess that would be the best way of putting it. We would like them to work with North Island College to come together and to make some recommendations for long-term planning.

Right now North Island College is funded at $7,800 per FTE, and the average across the province is $7,200. So they are actually funded in the ballpark of the rest. But it's an interesting…. I take the member's suggestion and questions seriously.

You have a big population, but why aren't they going to North Island College? I guess, historically, it may be because of logging and mining and fishing.

That would be my guess, but that doesn't mean that there aren't opportunities to shape the types of courses offered at the college to better fit the needs of the community. I think that's what they're doing through their planning process.

One of the things we've seen…. I think it's imperative that we do it — make the post-secondary system more relevant to students. I honestly hadn't thought of the number of people. When you say there are three ridings there with three MLAs, that's a large population to be served by North Island College's present size. I appreciate those comments.

C. Trevena: I should share to the minister that I thank you for acknowledging that, because it is a serious concern. Obviously, when we get to the north Island, it's a sparsely populated part of my constituency.

I'll come back to the North Island Post-Secondary Education Committee in a moment. But one of the areas that I know would assist would be in funding for trades programs. I have talked with the board and the president about trades programs and with others in the community. Obviously, there is the issue of how expensive it is to fund trades programs with all of the equipment.

One of the issues that I know has been raised by the president — and I think it's potentially a very good idea — is to have some sort of fund for rural colleges that is there so that you can replace the equipment as it starts to wear out, as the new equipment needs to come on line. For existing trades training, you can keep up to speed and also make sure that you can start expanding trades training. I wondered if this is something that the ministry is looking at.

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the areas that North Island College is looking at is some community participation and getting out to see what's needed in the area. I can give you an example of what may be a solution to that problem. Last year we ordered two portable trades-training centres. Kamloops has one, and Prince George has one. It's basically a very large semi with a complete workshop and skills teaching area inside it. It just pulls up into a smaller community and does the apprenticeship training there for six weeks and then moves on to another community.

Those communities are rural like the member's community. That may be an option. They were in the range of about $600,000 or $700,000 per unit. TRU owns one, and CNC owns the other. They use them in the rural areas. That may be an option that would be worth looking at for North Island.

C. Trevena: I think that is actually a very interesting idea and, clearly, is a solution to trying to make sure that you can get trades to places like Port McNeill or out onto the islands. But the actual question is whether there is any sort of fund for maintaining and upgrading the equipment that is already there.

You go around the shop in the Campbell River campus, and it's an extraordinary amount of equipment. A lot has been donated by industry, so working on actual industry equipment. But how to make sure that the college doesn't fall behind so that we can keep up with our trades training? Obviously, it is very competitive, and we are losing young people straight to work. So it's how we can encourage them and make sure that the equipment is there for them.

Hon. M. Coell: I take the member's point. I probably am not going to be able to answer it to the fullest that she'd like. The operating grants over the next three years will actually go up by about a million dollars.

One of the issues that Perrin pointed out, and that will become part of our review, is capital funding on an annual basis. It doesn't seem to be as much an issue to the universities as it is to the colleges. I think one of the reasons is that the universities can raise funds from foundations and the public and the federal government a lot easier than colleges.

It's one area that we're aware of. We tried to deal with that, and the critic and I discussed it earlier. We put $21.7 million out in December, just to the college sector, to address some of the issues in the Perrin report. That was one-time funding to let us get through the review of the Perrin and Auditor General, and then we can do it at a staff level.

I appreciate her bringing those issues to my attention, and I will look into whether there is a potential for a portable trades-training unit. I'll get the member some information on them as well. I was quite excited last year when it was suggested. We were going to build just one, and we decided to build two. One is in actual operation now.

One of the other issues, which I know my colleague from Cariboo South touched on when you were discussing about the college in the interior, is about the support for aboriginal education.

This is another big area, obviously for North Island College, in the north Island. We do have some assistance for aboriginal education going particularly to Gwa'Sala-Nakwaxda'xw on reserve to help the first nations integrate.

one of the areas that I would like the minister to look at is providing some sort of ongoing support for the college so it can attract and basically be able to keep first nations in the college system so that they don't either not reach college or get attracted into the private college sector.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm glad you asked. Actually, in our three-year plan we have funding for aboriginal service plans. North Island is one of the 11 institutions that will receive $150,000 this year for planning. Then they can come back to us and ask for three years of between $200,000 and $700,000 to develop an aboriginal service plan for bringing aboriginal students into the system.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to hear that there is going to be that sort of commitment and pleased it's going to be ongoing.

The other issue I have touches on some of the things that the minister was talking about with my colleague from Cariboo South about attracting students to the college. North Island College has had a tradition of being in the communities and being out in the rural communities. One reason why the North Island Post-Secondary Education Committee was formed was because of the dissatisfaction with the North Island College when they left the communities.

I have a couple of questions on this. One is that a certain amount of money was granted to NIPSEC to do a study. Then NIPSEC was expecting more money to continue its study and didn't receive it and was told that, at that stage, it was going to be working with North Island College. This is acceptable to North Island College, but it's not acceptable to NIPSEC.

I wondered if there was any way that we can resolve this, even if it is some grant to help NIPSEC work on the issues and bring them back with North Island College, or to have a look at the other alternatives that are there, but to provide some sort of assistance to make sure there is the availability of some post-secondary education in the very rural communities.

Hon. M. Coell: I understand the situation from the member. I've had discussions with the board and president of North Island College. We want them to get as much input from the community as possible when they are developing their three-year plan. I'm encouraged that they were up in, I think, Port Hardy at public meetings.

It's important for the community to work together to find some long-term solutions, and that's why I suggest something that can move around so it wouldn't just be in one place. It would show up as needed.

I am aware of the situation. We did fund them, and then we didn't get exactly what we wanted. They didn't get exactly what they wanted, either, to be perfectly fair to them. So we turned to North Island College to finish off the three-year plan. But we encouraged them — and still are — to get as much public input as they possibly can to address some of those needs that were identified.

I'm optimistic. I think when the three-year plan comes forward, it will have addressed many of the areas that were flagged by the committee. But I am open to ideas from the member as well.

C. Trevena: Yes. I have been talking to people from NIPSEC and talking to the board and the president of the college, and I will continue to try to bring all sides together.

One of the areas that will provide some assistance, I believe, is the move on adult basic education. I wanted to talk briefly about this because this is something that North Island College is doing very well. They've got very good success rates.

I was talking with the representative for adult basic education from the college about getting them back into Alert Bay and doing some sort of ABE in Alert Bay — to try and make that link.

I wondered what sort of ongoing commitment the minister can provide on this area for all communities in adult basic education, particularly — we're talking about the more isolated ones — getting out to Alert Bay, Sointula, Quatsino, Kyuquot and so on.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we had a lengthy discussion this morning, the critic and I, on adult basic education. Some of the colleges charge for a portion of it, and some don't. North Island doesn't charge. If you left school and want to come back, you don't pay. If you've graduated and you want to come back and upgrade, you don't pay either. They're already doing that.

For your interest, we're looking at that. It's about a $4 million cost to have everyone, if you leave school, to be able to come back and do it. We also asked, I think in a letter to Geoff Plant, who's doing Campus 2020, to look at that issue and give us some suggestions.

I've had lots of advice already. I've had the Canadian Federation of Students and faculty and a whole bunch. So I have an idea that there need to be some changes made.

Your comments with regard to getting into rural areas. It is a difficult one, and not just for your riding. I know that it's about how you find the ten students you need to have a class go on. That's one of the problems with B.C. being so big. There are areas that just don't get served as well as other areas. If you have any suggestions, I am willing to listen to them.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Minister — through the Chair. The suggestion I do have — and I'll wrap up here — is really to be as flexible as possible. I think this is one of the things that have troubled people in the north Island about North Island College and why there is a certain disconnect about some of the more isolated communities.

It's a sense that at times there isn't the flexibility — I've talked to the president and the board about this — with the concept of campuses and having…. It's regarded in the communities as looking at the buildings rather than the people. So it's the concept of getting out, taking a mobile unit out — the trades-training model — being willing to go to communities rather than expecting communities to come.

In my constituency, for example, if you're going out to Kyuquot, you are going to be getting out there by water taxi, and you're going to be there for a couple of days to make it worthwhile. Having that sort of flexibility, looking at a plan where you are going to be going around a route, maybe, for a couple of months — a few days in each place. I think it's that flexibility of making sure that a college can take its services….

Sometimes it's going to be quite limiting. It's not going to be what everybody wants, but just to be able to take certain classes to people rather than expecting people to come to the classes. That would be my main suggestion. It doesn't have to be on a big scale, but I

also think that the idea of taking apprenticeship training out into communities is excellent.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate that advice. One of the things that we talked about earlier but I think is worth mentioning is that we had a meeting of all the college presidents and school district superintendents in Richmond about three months ago. It's the first time they'd met as a group. They meet in areas, but they'd never met as the entire province.

What we were looking at specifically was adult basic education and training and how you can work with a school district and a college to use their facilities back and forth. That may be an option for your riding: to work with the school district, in some of the schools and some of the smaller school footprints around, and with the college.

R. Fleming: If I could ask some questions of the minister again about capital projects — where we were before some colleagues asked about programs in their areas.

I wanted to finish maybe for a moment on Partnerships B.C. I'm still not clear on how the tentacles of that government agency are going to usurp the capital planning of the institutions on campuses. I think, unfortunately, many of the administrators aren't either until perhaps the next round of capital submissions are made to the government. I think it'll be a rude awakening to some of them that they've lost control over how they will evaluate and proceed on projects.

Maybe we'll leave that entity aside for a moment and talk about campus sustainability initiatives. I know that the government in its throne speech has pledged to make B.C. a leading-edge green jurisdiction. Of course, the proof in that is always in the pudding. I think one of the ways that government can influence sustainability initiatives throughout the province is to work with the market economy to provide incentives through the tax system and through other means, but it can also most clearly demonstrate its own intent and show leadership through areas that it directly influences.

Obviously, the institutions we have in our advanced education system are one of them. In fact, where you have students and faculty talking about these issues and about climate change and other things, you've got a pretty good knowledge base to do it — hence, my interest in what campuses are doing around sustainability initiatives.

Perhaps the minister can describe which institutions have sustainability initiatives that are currently underway.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, one of the things my deputy is doing right now is going around and assessing what programs they already have in place.

I think the member might be of the same frame of mind as me. I think the universities and colleges are probably far ahead of other parts of government in their desire to do LEED buildings, their desire to use water systems. I know at the University of Victoria the engineering building is LEED standard and has everything from personal obligations while you're in the building to the building reheating itself through water systems and the like.

What we want to do is to make sure that we've got sort of green campuses. My feeling is that they're going to be moving faster than other parts of government on their own, and that's a good thing. I think, as the member said, you have campuses full of people who understand climate change and students who are actively interested in climate change. This is an initiative they'll probably grasp, and I think have done — just look at the UBC Sustainability Office that was up before our announcement.

They're moving ahead. I'm proud that they are. I think that's great. We can learn from them. What my deputy is going to do is go around and assess what they're doing, see what we can do to help, and what they can do to help us.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the answer. I think what you'd probably find…. The minister suggested that the deputy is gathering information on what is happening everywhere on sustainability initiatives to see what the different campuses are doing. I would suggest that the findings are probably going to show some inconsistencies.

While some campuses of their own initiative are grabbing the ball and running with it, others are building, frankly, wasteful buildings and not working in the spirit of what the government at least suggested was the direction it wants to take in the throne speech.

I'm wondering, then, if the ministry is considering mandating that all post-secondary institutions, when they do building projects, have to be to a certain LEED standard and they must include sustainability practices in the construction and operation of that. I wonder if the ministry would not only mandate it but if they would actually consider offering certain supports to those institution for doing it. Often there is a disincentive to do it because the upfront cost is higher.

The public sector is probably more interested in it sometimes than the private because they will realize the savings, and the savings can be justified in a business case where the repayment is longer. But maybe the minister can answer that question about mandate and incentive programs.

Hon. M. Coell: I've got a number of comments because, like the member, I'm quite interested in this area. B.C. right now leads Canada in public sector LEED capital projects. We're going to be using sustainability and green buildings as one of the criteria for capital project approvals, but it's interesting when you look at….

Both the member and I are from the capital regional district. There are three buildings under construction at UVic right now, all LEED buildings, all approved because the business plan made sense. The Camosun College one, a sport facility, is a LEED building. Again, a business plan made sense.

In our area, just to change the subject a bit, Dockside Green is a good example of a private sector who is more than…. I don't know whether it's a gold or a platinum level. So the private sector is interested as well.

People are starting to see not only the need to make the changes as corporations and as institutions, but as individuals. I think that the push from the university sector is going to be very strong to continue to do this. I don't think we're going to have to push them; I think they're going to be pushing us to the greatest extent. But I do agree with the member that it's a little inconsistent.

We've got some of the colleges that can't raise the funds to do that from the federal government for research or from the private sector for some of the very large personal and corporate donations they get. We need to look to them as to how we can help the college sector and some of the rural colleges as well.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that. One of the things that the government has promised but for a couple of years now has failed to deliver on was to change the B.C. Building Code so that it actually becomes mandatory to build with the most sustainable building products available and to have energy efficiency ratings for various parts of the buildings — heating and lighting systems being mandatory and required.

Failing that, though, my question was…. The ministry has a role in the project approvals, but if the minister could just concisely say…. Do you mandate things like LEED certification now for a capital project?

Hon. M. Coell: It's one of the criteria that we use in approval of a project, but it isn't mandated right now. It's interesting that most, if not all, of the buildings that are coming forward that are on campuses are moving that way on their own. So we will be able to enhance that and work with them.

The difference, I guess, from my perspective is I want to make sure that all parts of the province are treated equally, so it's not just the campuses on the lower mainland that get the LEED buildings but that the ones in the north get it as well. There may be some issues with that as to how and what we have to do to assist them in doing that.

R. Fleming: So I think what I heard was that in evaluating, it's a factor that you consider, but it's not a requirement. What the ministry could contemplate doing, and maybe the minister can ask if he is contemplating this, is to simply say that you must demonstrate that the building project is going to proceed in a sustainable manner and will incorporate technologies that support that. Failing to do that means the funding is tied to that. Is that something that the minister is contemplating?

Hon. M. Coell: We're certainly moving in that direction as government as well. I think that with the planning this year on environmental issues and climate change, you're going to see a number of recommendations come forward on how government behaves in the future.

I think this one, when we look at what we were calling the Pacific green campuses, is a way of making all of our campuses meet the guidelines and the projections that we've put in place for ourselves for our province.

As I say, I don't see an issue there. I see a bunch of willing partners moving as fast if not faster than us to achieve the same goals.

R. Fleming: The minister raised the buzzword that I'd forgotten about: Pacific green campuses. Is that a program then to promote sustainability, and does it have funding attached to it that institutions can apply for?

Hon. M. Coell: My deputy said that it's a gleam in my eye. But it's an idea that we're flushing out and moving forward on and working with the institutions to build.

R. Fleming: Yeah. Well, I would suggest that in addition to looking around the building code issues for projects, there's also an opportunity for…. You know, campuses have to prioritize, and they live within budgets like everyone else. But they may be induced to do retrofits to existing buildings. Some of the buildings are pretty old and not energy efficient at all. I wonder if the minister would look at not just new construction but also try and aggressively get universities to really embrace sustainability and look at projects on their existing buildings.

Hon. M. Coell: I agree with the member. A good example of that would be UBC renew, where we put, I think, $160 million in our capital plan for renewing the older buildings at UBC. What they're doing…. As they tear down the buildings or just renovate them, they're bringing them up to a standard that would be a LEED standard in many instances.

I gave the member the wrong number. It's $120 million. Of that, $60 million is from the provincial government, and $60 million from the federal government. We're also contemplating doing that on some of the other campuses with older buildings, like the 1960s buildings of SFU. There are some on the college campuses that are very old as well.

R. Fleming: I'm sure they'll be asking for some aesthetic funds next, too, in some of the campus examples you mentioned. That's not a very nice comment.

I will just maybe ask one more. The minister mentioned LEED projects in the public sector. He mentioned some examples in the private. He's quite right; there are some great examples of new buildings coming into our building supply. But I think we can probably only count a couple of dozen in truth across B.C. right now. Many, many more are being built that are in complete disregard to the way we should be building for the future.

In light of the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions provincewide and what UBC got on an ad hoc basis, is it contemplated then that there will be programs in the future and mandatory requirements for sustainable building practices and sustainability initiatives in general at B.C. campuses?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the short answer is that that's something we're going to consider as part of our capital planning. I agree that the end objective of what we're calling Pacific green campuses is that everything done on a campus would have sustainability targets and meet them, if it's not a building, and if it's a building to have the LEED-type of designation to it. So we're moving in that direction. But as I said, I think there is a willing partner to move even faster than we had initially suggested as government.

R. Fleming: I know that a feature of this budget is some capital spending on campuses over the three-year plan. I wanted to ask the minister if the matching funds program is contemplated to be reinstated, where institutions, through their own foundations and their alumni associations…. The original P3s — if you will, I suppose — type of capital projects that universities and university colleges advanced…. Is that matching funds program contemplated for a return in the future — if the minister could just provide any explanation around that?

Hon. M. Coell: We did a number of matching programs over the last few years. An example would be the Mearns library at UVic. We've also got the BCKDF, with which we do matching. We've identified in our capital plan $50 million over three years that could be used as matching funds so that institutions could go out and look for the philanthropic donation or a corporate donation to match and then come to government and say: "We've got $2½ million for this project. Can we use $2½ million matching funds?" That's being initiated this year, and it's $50 million over three years in our capital budget.

R. Fleming: There was just a single question that I should have asked when we were discussing adult basic education. I'll just bring it up now. I don't want to get into that topic for an extended amount of time. But it was about school boards and the new mandate in the government somewhere that literacy programming at school boards should include adult basic education. I know that some training does exist in that sector now, but is there a shift to move adult basic education out of the community college sector into, for example, school boards? Is there any background that the minister can provide to the committee about that?

Hon. M. Coell: The answer is no. I think there is a need for both. There are people who don't feel comfortable at age 23 going back into a high school. They'd rather go to a community college. I think there is a need for someone that age — and not just that age — to get hooked into a community college and maybe do their adult basic education and then move on to a career. I think there will always be a place to have adult basic education at the high school level and at the college level as well. We don't have any plans for changing direction at this point.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the answer. I had heard there was a move afoot and that it may have looked at a reallocation, but the minister's answer is that that's not the case.

I wanted to ask some questions about Campus 2020. I know we'll have a copy of that soon. It will be released. But in the absence of that, I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the process.

I have a copy of the strategic review, the overview of the consultation strategy as it was originally developed by the ministry. One of the things that the ministry, quite rightly, was interested in was to have this review look at underrepresented groups in post-secondary education and, specifically, the question around how needs can be better served by the post-secondary sector to ensure increased access — recruitment, retention, completion rates and employment opportunities.

I think that's good, but there are also specific directions, though, that constrict the parameters of the review that have to do with accessibility, and that is mainly around funding levels. Is it the case that the Campus 2020 recommendations and the scope of the review are not to include any examination of funding levels in the advanced education sector?

Hon. M. Coell: That's a very good question. We had done the Perrin report, which was a funding report. We wanted to have Campus 2020 and, I guess, "Thinking Ahead" was the byline for it, and it wasn't to go in. I think one of the problems that Bob Rae had in his one is it turned into about 50 percent discussion of: "We need more funds for this thing." We wanted to have a discussion on what we should be doing, what courses we should be developing and what changes we need to see in the system. What I am hoping is that when we get the report in the near future, my staff will take it, and if there are suggestions on costing in it, then we would cost out the changes and suggestions that are made.

I think it was pretty healthy that we did get lots of suggestions that there needed to be more funding in different programs. I expected that, and probably at every meeting there was a suggestion we needed more funding in different areas. And that was good. It was part of the process.

But there was a lot of what I would think is blue sky thinking about what the system should look like in the next 20 years. I got copies — I suspect the member also got copies — of a lot of the institutional briefs that were sent to the panel and to Mr. Plant. There were some really good long-term suggestions that, hopefully, he'll make some recommendations on.

R. Fleming: Well, I think the best part of the Rae report was the funding recommendations, and I know

that the government has taken those and used them to announce a $6 billion or $6.2 billion advanced education system for Ontario in ramping up financial commitments. So I think that maybe excluding that…. I don't think it would have been an overlap of what the Perrin report is. The Perrin report was about current funding challenges. This exercise was to look 15 years ahead and look at some of the things there.

I wonder, since the minister has suggested that a lot of people came out to talk about funding issues, in light of that, will Mr. Plant be allowed to report out on funding recommendations or funding challenges?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that he will be reporting out on what he thinks he heard and what the suggestions…. He's a pretty independent thinker, and I don't think I would be able to suggest one thing or the other to him.

R. Fleming: It's interesting though. In the background that explains the mandate, it says that the review will not — and it's bolded and underlined — include an assessment of funding levels. It seems to me that looking ahead and flying blind, really, on the funding question was a mistake.

Can the minister describe to the committee…? I think it was a curious choice by the government. How was Mr. Plant chosen — was it by the minister himself? — to head this process? Presumably the ministry wanted to do the exercise of looking ahead before it had thought of an individual in mind, but I may be wrong. Could the minister describe how that was undertaken?

Hon. M. Coell: He was appointed by the Premier and myself. We have confidence in him to do an independent report and to listen to British Columbians. That's hopefully what he's done, and hopefully what we'll see in a report.

R. Fleming: Was there any caution or advice from legal counsel around the members' conflict act, appointing him, a former cabinet minister, within less than 24 months — within that 24-month period that is described, I think, in section 8 of that act — and that that might run afoul of the legislation around the members' conflict act?

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that it fits within the guidelines that are there — that he is able to do the work.

R. Fleming: Was there legal counsel involved then in making that determination or was it vetted by the conflict commissioner?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll have to get back to the member on that as to what advice was sought.

R. Fleming: Was there any advisory or was there any discussion? The minister said it was between him and the Premier in terms of his selection. But was there any discussion from your staff or anyone else in government that the appointment may be controversial? Because, of course, Mr. Plant had been involved in partisan politics and had been a cabinet minister only 13 months, or less, before the appointment. In terms of the credibility of the exercise, are there any briefing notes or any documentation in government that contains discussion about that?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the entire background, all the papers, have been FOI'd by a number of sources, so anything that's out there is out there at this point. I'm not aware of any.

R. Fleming: Well, I have submitted a freedom-of-information request and haven't received anything yet.

Again, to the minister, I'm not asking for the documents here. I'm just asking whether they exist and whether the discussion of the kind…. Was there some sensitivity to the appointment of somebody who was involved and at the cabinet table in a lot of controversial decisions around advanced education regarding tuition fees and student financial aid? Whether the government thought having somebody who had participated in those decisions so recently and who is an active party member and a friend of the Premier — having him head what is to be a contemplative future-oriented discussion with the public…. Were there any problems that were anticipated by the government? Are there any briefing notes or any paper on that within the ministry?

Hon. M. Coell: I will find out the status of the FOI on this issue. I believed that it had already gone out, but it may not have.

It's sort of a government prerogative from time to time to enlist the help of people in the private sector to do contract work for them. In this instance we felt that he was a good person to actually do that contract work for us. From all the reports I've had back from the community meetings, the consultations and the committees, he has done a good job of listening and putting a team of people together that will be able to give him the advice he needs to do the job we asked him to do.

R. Fleming: I think what was disappointing, clearly, to any observer or participant in Campus 2020 was that it wasn't well-attended, by any stretch. Most of the hearings were empty, and in some cases, I think there were many, many more staff than actual participants. That may be due to the appointment the government made to head that. I think it was a mistake.

I've asked the minister the question. He's answered to the best of his ability. If he does have information that I can have outside of the freedom-of-information process, I would appreciate it.

The question I asked at the start of this section on Campus 2020 was about how it was suggested —

correctly, I think — that an area of interest in this review was looking at underrepresented groups and increasing their participation. There are further instructions as to what would be outside the scope of the review. In one of them there is clear direction: "Issues outside the scope of this review include funding and affordability" — and then in brackets — "tuition and student financial assistance."

How can we ask somebody to do a review that looks at increasing the participation rates for underrepresented groups and looks at the challenges and barriers to that, and then explicitly exclude looking at tuition fees and student financial assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: Simply put, Campus 2020 was designed to look at vision, not money. What we were hoping to get back was a vision for the post-secondary system in the future. If there are costs to that and recommendations that have cost to them, then we as a government and as a ministry will assess those costs by the recommendations that are made.

In many respects we know about the funding issues. We know about the desire for different groups to have more funds and different funding programs. What we wanted was the people who went there…. I have read a lot of the documentation that was copied to both the critic and me. We wanted to see a vision, and I think we did.

Some of our partners came out with some pretty fantastic views of what the system could look like 20 years from now. I'd prefer to have that vision rather than an argument about "we just need more money." We can do that at another date and at another level.

R. Fleming: I think that's a fair point — that you don't want to have an unproductive exercise about current funding grievances take over a process that is trying to look forward. Again, surely if there is a planning element to Campus 2020, it has to contemplate…. I mean, the conversation on health care, for example, looks at fiscal issues on the horizon for health care. Similarly, if you look at the skills gap that we currently have and how we are going to achieve training levels and participation rates that will meet the labour market demands as we anticipate them to be, funding definitely comes into the question.

I would ask the minister again: how can the review have clarity — and credibility, I would suggest — to look at underrepresented groups and their participation rates and also use as a guiding principle accessibility — "Post-secondary education should be available to all qualified individuals regardless of their socioeconomic status" — and then explicitly exclude discussion around tuition fee levels and student financial assistance?

Again, I think Mr. Plant has heard concerns that are future-oriented about the cost of education and about needs-based, and otherwise, student financial assistance programs. Can the minister suggest how excluding that is going to make for an improved review?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that from our perspective as a ministry, we knew that discussion was inevitable as part of this process. What we wanted to do was to focus it more on the vision. I think that in the letter to Mr. Plant, what we wanted to do was focus and have him focus on the vision.

I knew full well that there would be a lot of interest in student financial aid, in graduate students and in a whole range of issues that I have had discussions on over the year. But from our perspective as government, we wanted to look out ten, 20 years and get people to think about a vision. The money can be worried about at a later date and will be, over successive governments between now and 2020.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could describe the cost, then, of the Campus 2020 process. I know the final invoices for Mr. Plant and other costs probably haven't been received yet, but this was budgeted for. I wonder if he could give a description of the total cost of Campus 2020.

Hon. M. Coell: The budget was in the million-dollar range. Mr. Plant's remuneration, I think, was $115,000. To my knowledge, it's all within budget at this point, but I can finalize that for the member for Monday, if you wish.

R. Fleming: I think I heard the minister just say it's within budget. There's a pretty flashy website for this project. I wonder if he could just tell me, because I didn't get a cost breakdown, about the cost of the website. You've given me Mr. Plant's remuneration: $115,000 for nine months' work, part-time. I wonder if you could tell me other staff costs associated with this project.

R. Fleming: Okay, I appreciate that. If the minister could also maybe break out the costs of the forums — the major cost areas there.

I wanted to ask the minister if he could tell me about Achieve B.C. and how his ministry participates within it. I'm not sure whether it's a program, or whether it's a rebranding or an icon or what it is, so if the minister could explain Achieve B.C.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is asking about the website Achieve B.C., where you can go in from K-to-12 and post-secondary and get information on the post-secondary system. Is that correct?

R. Fleming: That's correct. I'm just wondering what Achieve B.C. is as far as your ministry is concerned. Is it just a brand or portal — is that the word you used? — or is it a program that has funds and bursaries or things like that attached to it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member is correct. It's more like a portal where people can go to it and get information on funding sources for K-to-12 through to post-secondary. We'll build on that and put as much information in it as possible.

R. Fleming: Okay. I wanted to ask a bit about budget areas at the institutional levels. First of all, can the minister tell me whether budget letters have been issued for some of the institutions — which ones have and which ones have not?

Hon. M. Coell: They've had their preliminary numbers for a while, and their letters are going out later this week or early next week.

R. Fleming: Is that information that we could include in the estimates process, that we can have? If those letters have gone out, it would save me the trouble of asking for them from administrators at the institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: What I can do is when they go out, I'll make a copy of all of them available to you.

R. Fleming: Could the minister describe which public institutions are in a deficit situation this year?

Hon. M. Coell: No one is in deficit this year. They have some projected issues that they need to deal with. My understanding is that they are dealing with those issues.

I think we talked about UNBC and UBC before. Those are the two that come to mind.

R. Fleming: So those are the only two institutions that have issues that aren't called deficits that they're funding through their operations. Those are the only two institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sure there are other institutions that are having structural pressures that they are dealing with. But in the two years I've been minister, I've never seen anyone come in, in the red. They all managed to deal with their pressures and make the necessary changes to balance their budgets.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could expand on his comment around structural pressures and just give an indication of what the common structural pressures are to the institutions that are being funded.

Hon. M. Coell: I think probably it's responding to demand. The pressures would be having to change some of their courses around or drop some and add some that may have differing costs. That is ongoing. Every year all our institutions do that. They add courses and drop courses.

Some of those, until they've dropped the courses, would show a structural deficit there, but it's really something that they are going to deal with. Historically, there hasn't been a problem. It's good that they identify…. Some of the ones that UNBC identified were three years out, so they have lots of time to make the changes necessary to balance their books.

R. Fleming: The minister has just said that one of the structural pressures that institutions in B.C. are facing today is looking at programs that are higher cost and making program changes and choices, I suppose, within the institution, based on which programs are cheaper to deliver and which ones are costly.

Is there a rationalization going on of programs at a number of B.C. institutions just based on the cost of delivery? If that is the case, does it concern the minister that program choices are being made because of structural pressures in that regard?

Hon. M. Coell: We put a lot of faith in the boards that are nominated around the province, and their senior staff, to make choices. I think they have to make the choices with what's in demand now.

There are a lot of courses that we've added. We've added 107 new degrees. Those are all new programs that come with new staff, new equipment and sometimes new buildings. There are programs that were there when I was in university that don't exist anymore. They have outlived their usefulness — the member is smiling because I'm a lot older than he is — but there are a lot of programs that change over the years.

We talked about this earlier. It is difficult to make change when you have a program that's been going that used to have 50 students in it and then it had 20 and now it's got less than that, and there's a demand over here for another program that's got a waiting list for 100 and there are 50 people in the class.

Boards have to make those decisions, and they're not easy decisions. Anytime you have to make a change, it's going to create some unease for someone. We put the boards in a position to meet the demands of the institutions, and we fund those demands.

Sometimes it means there will be changes in other areas of the program. What happens is that until they have made those changes, they look like they're running a deficit. They actually make those changes, and at the end of the day, they come in on budget. Historically, that's how it's been done in the sector.

R. Fleming: I think what I'm asking the minister when he mentions structural pressures is that we don't want these kinds of things to be guiding education decisions solely — in our community colleges, for example. Programs aren't all equal in terms of the cost of delivery, but many of them are funded the same.

If the institution is trying to live within the block funding model, I am aware of some program cuts where there are perfectly good programs, and there is demand for them. In fact, there is in some cases a 100-percent employment prospect in those programs, yet they're being cut anyway.

I know the government likes to say that it's increasing funding and that there's nothing but good news in advanced education, but when you drill down to the

institutional level, we are seeing program cuts across institutions. The minister has admitted here this afternoon that there are some serious structural pressures that are guiding education decisions like that.

There was a budget update that Douglas College was concerned about in January from the ministry where they were projecting that certain costs weren't going to be funded — inflationary pressures, for example. They were projecting a $1.4 million deficit at that institution, which generated discussion by their board of governors about program changes and program cuts.

Has anything changed from that sort of late January discussion to when the budget was brought down in February that has allayed concerns at Douglas? I know the story is the same at many colleges.

Hon. M. Coell: I am aware of the issue the member brings up. Our staff are actually working with them to try and help them. Again, it's one of the issues that would be discussed with the funding review that's going to take place over the next 12 months and one of the reasons why we advanced $21.7 million in December to the colleges.

R. Fleming: In January, also, amongst the announcements that were coming out of the institutions was the $36 million deficit at UBC. To manage that deficit, the president, Dr. Stephen Toope, suggested that there would be a 5-percent cut to overall spending at that institution. I'm just wondering if the minister has an update about that projection, because it is a January figure that I have, and if he's aware that there is still projected to be a 5-percent cut to overall spending at UBC this year.

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that they are managing that. Their new president identified that, and their staff are working to manage that within their global budget.

R. Fleming: Well, one of the ways they are managing it is that they are cutting programs, and they're cutting very good programs at UBC. I wanted to ask the minister if he has concerns about a couple of them.

One is the UBC school of physical therapy. The minister is probably aware that there is a shortage of skilled physiotherapists in the province, and it's projected to get worse. Health authorities are currently out there recruiting and offering all kinds of signing bonuses. Some health authorities are raiding other health authorities to attract their staff, and these kinds of things. UBC is the only institution we have in this province with a school of physical therapy.

Can the minister tell me whether he has addressed the situation with the president of that university around cuts to the school of physical therapy?

Hon. M. Coell: The budget for UBC is, I believe, over $470 million. That's just our contribution. They have a lot of other avenues for revenue generation, as well, so they have a significant amount of money to work with on an ongoing basis. Just for an example, the increase in the medical school and the life sciences building was funded by government. We view this as an issue that is internal to UBC and one that, as I said, I'm sure the president of UBC is working on.

R. Fleming: As I understand it, one of the things at stake is that the accreditation of the school of physical therapy is at risk. Should the cuts go through to the school of physical therapy, it may lose its accreditation. I would think that would be something the minister would be very concerned about and would have had discussions with the president of the university about. Can he confirm that he has?

He suggested how much government funds the institution globally per annum, but when it comes to controversial decisions that they're making and the implications they have for health authorities and other ministries of government, isn't there a point where the minister might step in and have that conversation? And has he done so?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry staff have been in discussion with UBC staff. It is, of course, a concern.

Again, accreditation is an internal issue for any university. It's not something that the province can step in and fix. They have an accreditation process for many, many programs within the university that they have to be part of, and this is just one of them, very much internal to their operation. Again, I have faith that if they indeed want to solve the problem, they'll solve it, and their accreditation will be assured.

R. Fleming: One of the other programs…. This may have been one that was around when the minister studied at university. But at UBC, is home economics education…?

R. Fleming: Was there ever basket weaving? You hear that. It's an expression, I guess.

Home economics, quite seriously. Because it is so integrated with the department of education and certifying teachers…. There are undergraduate students, as I understand, who have been working for three, four or even five years to obtain prerequisites to get an accreditation in this, and the program is under notice for being cancelled. So some students could potentially have wasted up to $12,000 of their own money to get the prerequisites to study a program that is about to be cancelled. There has been no notice given of the cancellation.

Curiously, this is — and the minister will probably know this — one of those programs that is offered that is almost a ticket to guaranteed employment, because people with skills and background with this credential have very little trouble getting employment in the school system. So cancelling the program is going to have implications for other ministries. It is probably

going to ensure that students are staying on teacher-on-call lists for much longer. Those are typically people who are trying to add this to their education background.

Can the minister tell me if he is aware of this? Is there some concern as to what it may do for managing the teacher-on-call programs in B.C.?

Hon. M. Coell: Just an update. UBC has apparently responded to the creditor on how they will address the issue, so they are moving on that.

With regard to home economics, to my understanding there isn't anyone who is in the process right now who won't finish and complete the process before there are any changes made.

R. Fleming: Just around the amount of the deficit that UBC is wrestling with. My understanding is that quite a large portion of it actually comes from unfunded grad spaces that the university went ahead and funded on their own, I suppose. There are increased costs — mainly benefits, perhaps — from negotiations that were concluded that, for whatever reason, PSEC — the Public Sector Employers Council — did not fund. Can the minister confirm that there were costs to settlements that UBC signed agreements for that were not funded by PSEC and that are contributing to this deficit?

Hon. M. Coell: Noting what time it is, why don't I — and I'm not suggesting we stop — get that information for Monday? We're obviously going to sit Monday to have further discussions, and we can break that down as to what they have identified as pressures and how they are dealing with them. I'll have that information Monday.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that. One other aspect of the deficit that's related is that PSEC apparently did not fund an aspect of the faculty association settlement. As I understand it, it was outside the guidelines. I'm wondering whether that issue, which I think is a $3 million issue — almost 10 percent of the deficit that UBC is wrestling with…. If the minister could bring information on that, as well, it would be appreciated.

I want to talk a little bit about BCIT and some of the programs there. I know that skilled health care workers and meeting the demand that is there for various people who work in the health sector are important, and advanced education is the site of training for those positions. Can the minister confirm that the nurse practitioner program is now suspended at BCIT?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a couple of reasons for that. This is a good example of what we were talking about, of things moving around. It had a declining student demand and enrolment, and at the same time, UBC, UNBC and UVic all deliver a provincially funded master's level nurse practitioner program that had, I guess, more appeal. Students were moving to those three institutions to take the degree. There are some discussions now with BCIT that they would run the same program as UBC, UNBC and UVic, and that might attract students back. That's my understanding at this point.

R. Fleming: Can the minister also confirm that at BCIT other programs that are in the suspended category include forest ecosystems, forest technician, plastics engineering, tool and dye technician, industrial maintenance mechanic and power equipment?

Hon. M. Coell: That's my understanding, with the exception of the forestry ones. I believe they're developing a new forest program that will be used.

R. Fleming: Some of these programs are being eliminated — the ones I just mentioned. There are also cuts to classes at BCIT and fairly significant ones, depending on which program you're talking about. Can the minister confirm that it is the case that there are program cuts to the classes in financial management, tourism, professional sales, real estate, business administration, technology, teacher education, electrical and computer engineering technology, wireless communications, gas turbine and aircraft structures?

Hon. M. Coell: These are board decisions. When they look at their FTE targets, they make those decisions. To be perfectly honest, I feel they're in a better position to judge what's needed in those instances than maybe we are here in the Legislature.

There is a list of new programs at BCIT that they're bringing on board with new FTEs as well. It's a balance, and maybe on Monday, when we take up again, we could talk about that balance and what new programs BCIT is offering this year that they weren't three years ago, and what ones have disappeared. There is a progression through institutions of what works and what doesn't work, what's needed and what's not needed.

A good example would be the forestry ones that we talked about — the two they decided to cancel. They've now gone out to the forest sector and said: "Well, what do you need?" They said: "We probably need one program, and we'll help you design it." That will probably come on board next year.

There's a whole range of different programs that appear and disappear within all our institutions.

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.