2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 4

[ Page 5289 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A I call Committee of Supply — for the information of the members, the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this chamber I call committee stage debate of Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:05 a.m.

On section 1.

Hon. P. Bell: Just again, a quick overview of the Zero Net Deforestation Act. It articulates government's goal to achieve zero net deforestation by 2015. There are a number of measures as to how that can take place and some definitions around that. I'm pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this with the critic.

N. Macdonald: Just to facilitate for the Chair, there will be questions from me, and then my co-critic, as well, will have some questions.

Just to frame this and make sure that we're working from the same figures, the minister has said that this is intended to deal with the approximately 6,000 hectares per year on average of forested land that is removed from use as forested land. The minister talked about things such as mining, agriculture, residential development and transportation as examples of removing forested land. The thinking is, as the minister expressed, that when that is removed, there will be another area that will be changed from whatever it presently is into forested land.

Just to put this into context, in the figures that I've seen from forestry documents there are approximately 1.4 million hectares of not satisfactorily restocked land in British Columbia right now. Is that an accurate reflection? I think there we're talking about public land. Is that the context, that there are about 1.4 million hectares of non-satisfactorily restocked land and that this legislation is dealing with the approximately 6,000 hectares of land that would be removed from a forested state?

Hon. P. Bell: This specific bill is intended to address land that was previously forested land that has been shifted to a non-forest use. That would be the definition of land that would fall in the category of what we are calculating within the 6,000 hectares, so land that was previously forested that may have gone into agriculture or may have gone into some other development or something like that.

The 1.4 million hectares that the member opposite refers to is the larger not sufficiently restocked, but it falls into a number of categories. It was canvassed in estimates. I was just checking with staff here to see if we had that information. I can certainly bring that information back in, but it was canvassed in estimates and put on the record.

It includes a significant amount of volume that, although it's not sufficiently restocked, that obligation has not yet hit the time frame at which it comes due. In other words, there's a two-year ability from the time trees are harvested until the requirement to have them replanted comes into place.

[1010]

Then, of course, the sufficiently restocked category takes a period of time as well, depending on where you are in the province — anywhere from maybe a shorter period of seven or eight years to a longer period of 14 or 15 years in slower-growing parts of the province.

So to suggest that the 1.4 million hectares haven't been treated wouldn't be accurate. To say that it doesn't yet meet the test of "sufficiently restocked," which is measured when a free-growing stand is reached, would be a more accurate definition.

If the member wants to go down this road, we'll just have to get different staff in that have that information available, but it was canvassed extensively in estimates. I was able to provide the detailed numbers at that time. I just don't have the staff here to do that right now.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the context. We'll just go through each of the definitions. Part of what I wanted to understand is this. You do have terminology such as not satisfactorily restocked and things like that. So when we're talking about "afforestation," the definition here means: "the human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land…."

As the minister said, he has criteria that are really set in terms of determining when an area is satisfactorily restocked. I guess the first question is: when you're talking about afforestation, does that same criteria apply to this plot of land that will be replanted? Is it not considered replanted until it reaches certain criteria, and if so, what are the criteria?

Hon. P. Bell: Included in the definitions…. The third definition is "forest land," and that's what comes into the definition here. As the member will note, afforestation
[ Page 5290 ]
means the human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land to such an extent that it becomes forest land. The third definition is: forest land will be prescribed in regulation.

The intent of that regulation will be to meet the international standard of forested land, which, generally, the criteria suggest is that the area is capable of growing trees to a height of five metres with a crown coverage area of 25 percent of the land area. In addition, the area is greater than one hectare and greater than 20 metres in width. So that's the international standard that will be prescribed in regulation when that process comes forward.

N. Macdonald: So afforestation means that it will become forest land, and that will be defined later, but the minister is aiming towards some sort of international standard.

This is about two years since the promise was made to move in this direction, so it seems, I think, reasonable that there be a lot of time to be far more specific in terms of the definition for afforestation, especially since we have so much experience as a province in terms of coming up with definitions as to what is satisfactorily restocked. You know, we have all of this expertise.

Obviously there's a reason for this. Maybe the minister could walk through the reason why it was decided by the minister to move in this direction and head for this as-yet-to-be-fully-defined international standard. What's the rationale for that?

Hon. P. Bell: I think there are two elements to that question. The first, perhaps, wasn't directly addressed in the question. Why in regulation versus in legislation? I think that's probably part of the question.

[1015]

I think at this point in time…. Internationally, the definition of forested land may change over time. We don't know that, especially with regards to carbon sequestration and the move the world is making towards a low-carbon economy. So creating the flexibility to do that by regulation as opposed to legislation allows us, over time, if there is change in the international standards, to meet those changes. So I think that's kind of half of the question as it relates to why in regulation versus in legislation.

The other part of the question I think the member said is: do we not have a better definition? And I did read to the member generally what the regulation will look like as it is drafted. It hasn't been drafted yet. That will take place once the legislation is passed, presuming that this House chooses to pass the legislation.

Again, I'll read it into the record. "The general criteria for an area is to consider forest land in an area with trees or capable of growing trees to a height of five metres with a crown coverage area of 25 percent of the land by area. In addition, the area is greater than one hectare and greater than 20 metres in width." So that is the general definition that we would plan to take forward in the regulation.

N. Macdonald: Just so that it's a bit clear…. Possibly the minister gave this answer, and I didn't catch it. So do I understand, then, that just having the capacity to grow trees is enough?

You have a fairly clear definition of the size constraints that the plot would have. The minister talked about it. It cannot be narrower at any point, presumably, than 20 metres, and it cannot in total be less than one hectare, but the minister also said that it either had to have trees or have the capacity to grow trees. Does that mean it can only be possible that there would be trees on this land and that that would be suitable as an afforested area?

Hon. P. Bell: That actually brings the member back to the first definition. The definition of "forest land" is, as I've described, "either with trees or capable of growing trees." So that becomes the definition of what is forest land. In order to afforest land that is considered capable, that is considered forest land, it means the "human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land…."

First, the land is selected under the definition that's been described. Once the land has been selected, you would be selecting a piece that doesn't have trees on it, and the act of afforestation would be the act of planting trees on that land.

N. Macdonald: Okay, just so that I'm clear, the minister gave a definition of forest land. Forest land is what you end up with after afforestation, but in your definition of what you end up with, you said that it is land that has the potential to grow trees. Am I confused on that point, or is that accurate?

Hon. P. Bell: The definition of forest land is land that's capable of or currently has trees on it. So when one was selecting land for afforestation, one would be selecting land that is considered forest land without trees on it and then afforesting that land.

N. Macdonald: Okay. I mean, just listen to the language. Afforestation means "the human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land to such an extent that the area becomes forest land." That's the end result of afforestation. But the minister is saying that forest land can include a definition of an area that doesn't necessarily have trees.

I guess it sort of leads to the question of: how is that in most people's minds? Afforestation means that there would actually be trees. But if the end result is that there doesn't need to be, I think that's somewhat confusing for
[ Page 5291 ]
people. I realize there are still regulations to come and so on, but maybe the minister can clarify that for me.

[1020]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify it. Forested land is land that is either capable of growing trees or currently has trees on it. So when we select a piece of forest land for an afforestation project, we would be selecting a piece of land that's capable of growing trees to a height of five metres with a minimum crown coverage of 25 percent of the land, and then the prescribed widths and sizes that I've talked about. We would select that land, which we would then plant trees on, and it would then become afforested. I'm not sure what else I can explain other than that.

N. Macdonald: Since the end result can be simply land with no trees on it, what, in "afforestation," does the minister mean by "human-induced establishment of trees on an area"? What is the full scope of human-induced establishment of trees that we're talking about? What are the various methods? What are the various things that you're talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: The intent, in the selection of the land, would be to find land that is either…. Although it may have some trees on it, it wouldn't qualify underneath the umbrella of 25 percent crown coverage or five-metre heights and is unlikely to achieve that level on its own. So we'd be looking for lands. An example of that might be a gravel pit, or a site like that, that is unlikely to achieve that standard in a reasonable period of time.

The other point that we haven't got to yet is the "non-forest land." It's land that has been in that state prior to December 31, 1989, so another important criterion in this discussion is that timeline. It's not land that could have just been deforested in the last year or two; it has to meet a longer-term test.

Perhaps where the confusion is — and I've been guilty of this, I know, already in this discussion today — is intermixing the words "forest land" with "forested land." I'm sure I've used those two terms interchangeably on a number of occasions. There is a difference, of course. Forest land is land capable of growing trees with a 25 percent crown coverage. Forested land, obviously, would be land that already has those trees on it.

N. Macdonald: Two questions, then. Just that December 31, 1989, is…. I presume that that would relate to Kyoto or that there'd be some reason for that choice. Maybe the minister could explain December 31, 1989 — the significance of that date.

Hon. P. Bell: That's based on the UNFCC rules and definitions that we adopted.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so coming back to definitions, just to be clear, afforestation leads, as an end result, to forest land, and the minister has said that the definition of "forest land" is land that either has trees on it, at the end of the day, or the potential for trees on it, at the end of the day. That's the definition of afforestation as the minister has explained it.

The question, then: is there any connection between the quality of the land that is deforested and the quality of the land that is going to be afforested? If the minister is talking about a sort of a zero-sum game here, are there any sorts of criteria there for the quality of the land that we're talking about?

Hon. P. Bell: I should have…. Sometimes we rattle off acronyms very quickly in this room. UNFCC stands for the United Nations framework on climate change.

[1025]

The member asks if there's a relationship between the quality of lands. In other words, if one parcel of land was capable of sequestering six cubic metres of carbon dioxide per year, would the requirement be to find a matching piece of land? The answer to that question is no.

We looked at both options in the development of this legislation. We considered a cubic-metre-for-cubic-metre standard, and we considered a hectare-for-hectare standard, and we landed on a hectare for a hectare. That appears to be the direction that we're seeing globally.

You know, you can argue both sides of the equation, and I think that's fair. You could argue that it should be a cubic metre for a cubic metre. But we believe that the principle of the hectare for a hectare would, on balance, meet the test and also achieve the end outcome. While some sites will undoubtedly be poor quality, others will be better quality sites. On balance, we think that the right outcome will be achieved.

N. Macdonald: So who checks? There is a definition for afforestation. Presumably, if you're talking about 4,000 hectares a year, there's going to be a need for people to go and check, even if all you end up with is the potential for trees to grow. The minister is talking about gravel mine sites being reclaimed. So who goes and checks and makes the determination that there is a possibility that this land is going to end up as forest land with the definition that the minister has?

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to that question is that a combination of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range will do that measurement and report it publicly every two years.

N. Macdonald: We're getting into another part around the reporting. So what the minister is saying…. Let's be a bit more specific here. If there is an area that is identified as land that is going to be potential for afforestation, at
[ Page 5292 ]
that point do ministry staff, either from the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Forests, go out and physically go to the site and determine whether it is suitable for afforestation?

Hon. P. Bell: The ministries do not check the site prior to the activity taking place. The ministries check the site after the activities have taken place to ensure that it meets the standards that we'll be reporting to.

N. Macdonald: What the minister is saying is that upon forest land status being met or somebody claiming that there's now forest land where there previously wasn't, the minister will then have staff go out and just check to see that that is the case.

Do staff previously determine that it was non-forest land? How is the determination made that it was non-forest land prior to December 31, 1989? How does the recordkeeping take place? First, it has to be identified as non-forest land by this legislation, and then it has to be established as forest land. So are there two visits or just one? How does that work?

Hon. P. Bell: We do all of that work via remote sensing, either aerial photographs or satellite photographs. So we are able to identify the areas that are currently deforested and certainly will provide some guidance. As we've certainly indicated, there's a desire to offer incentives for people to afforest land. How we'll be monitoring our activity is based on the level of incentives — increasing them or decreasing them as necessary to make sure that we meet the objective.

[1030]

Clearly, there will be a process under which we're offering those incentives and people will be applying for them, so we'll know the work that's going on.

In terms of the member's question of knowing whether or not the activity or the land previously would have qualified, we have aerial and satellite photographs going back a significant amount of time in the province, and we'll be able to calculate it on that basis.

N. Macdonald: Just come back to afforestation. The minister says that the difference between land that's considered non-forest land and afforestation would be something that is identified through remote processes. I just want the minister to explain how it would look different, since the definition of forest land potentially is exactly the same as what it would look like when it is non-forest land — right? All it has to do is have the potential of growing trees.

How would it look any different from a distance, and how do you identify, how do you know, that the land is actually capable of growing trees if you don't go in there and do soil work? Is the minister saying that there's going to be staff going in and doing soil work to actually make sure that this properly is an area that potentially would grow trees?

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I guess the technology that's available — and we'd be happy to provide a briefing to the member and the associate critic on this as well — is truly remarkable in terms of the level of information that can be gained both through satellite imagery and, certainly, aerial photographs.

Even going back to my logging time, which just barely postdates 1989, when I was logging in the early to mid- to late '90s, the ability to look at a given block or patch of timber and understand exactly what's growing on it by species, by size, by quality…. It's very good technology and has been that way for some time. We certainly have a great degree of confidence in our ability to look at sites to determine whether or not they were deforested prior to 1989 or not.

The element maybe that I haven't added in up until now — and I apologize for that — is, of course, there will be a registry of lands that are afforested in order for organizations to qualify for afforestation credits, however those evolve, and that will tell us exactly the sites that have been afforested. Then depending on the nature of the requirement, we can either verify that again utilizing remote imagery or by going out and visiting the site, which is I think what will happen more often than not.

Those processes will all follow the standard practices that we've seen through the Canadian Forest Service over the years and will just be expanded into complementing this particular piece of legislation.

N. Macdonald: So areas that are suitable for afforestation, the minister is saying…. People are going to identify suitable areas. This is presumably private land, and the minister used the example of the gravel pit. If it's not just private land, if it's public land as well, the minister could let me know.

Just to understand, the minister will have people applying for areas that are currently non-forest and who want to put out there areas that should become afforested. And the minister is saying now that more often than not the minister is going to have staff go and physically check on site whether this is an appropriate area for afforestation. Is that what the minister is now saying?

[1035]

Hon. P. Bell: There are kind of two questions here. The first one the member asked is what types of land would qualify for afforestation, and suggested private. I think in my second reading comments I added that area-based tenures like woodlots, community forests and TFLs could qualify, and also parks could qualify for that sort of work. We're also looking at other options.

Under the definition of "forest land" the member will note that it "means an area of land that meets the prescribed requirements," which gives us the regulatory ability to
[ Page 5293 ]
define that. As I said in my second reading comments, those include private area-based tenures and parks at this point, but certainly I'm eager to see us be able to use this for other opportunities as well.

The second question the member asked, and the general questions, has been around reporting, and that's actually under section 3 of the bill. I'd be happy to talk more about reporting under section 3.

N. Macdonald: I think we just need to be clear here. I think the minister has stated that this has been set up to look at opportunities with carbon offset and other things. I think the concerns people have with carbon offset is that when you set up this sort of system, there has to be incredible rigour in terms of the rules that are set out.

Now, the minister has said, or maybe I've presumed, that the minister wants to have some flexibility. As this market emerges, conditions may change. Definitions across national boundaries have to be consistent. I understand all of that.

I think it's fair to say that if the minister is bringing forward legislation, that we be clear in exactly what sort of properties we're talking about here. Let's go back to this: human-induced establishment of trees. It seems a bit of an obvious question, but let's put it on the record. What exactly does the minister mean by human-induced establishment of trees?

L. Popham: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I'm proud to introduce visitors today from a school in my constituency. There are 11 grade 5 students from St. Margaret's School. They are visiting us, and they are in the precinct right now. The school's motto is "Service with love," which was chosen as it summarizes the life exemplified by Queen Margaret and the ideals the school's founders held for their students. I would like to make them feel welcome.

[1040]

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Bell: For the students in the gallery today, we're currently in committee stage of Bill 5, which is the Zero Net Deforestation Act. The committee phase is where the critic, who sits opposite, and I, as the minister, talk about the specific bill and the nature of the bill and different elements of it and have a really good dialogue about the spirit of the bill and the meaning.

We're currently on the first part of the bill, which is just the definitions. So I hope we don't put you all asleep. I hope it's somewhat entertaining for you.

The member asked what, in the act, "human-induced establishment of trees" means. While primarily we expect that would be the planting of trees, it could also include site-preparation activities that would take a site that is not currently capable of producing trees for one reason or another that would then allow that site to produce trees, or also potentially the seeding of trees, although that's an unusual activity — not something we would normally see — but it could include that as well. Those would be probably the three key elements of establishment of trees on a site.

I hope it gets more exciting for you than that.

N. Macdonald: Presumably, the minister is saying that that would be checked out by staff on the ground, although he's also said that he would have the technology to check out whether that was done at all. He's also said that the forest land…. After these processes, you could end up with land that has no trees but has the potential at some point in the future for having trees — because the definition of "forest land" includes land that simply has the potential of having trees in the future.

With deforestation…. The definition of "deforestation" includes areas that would be excluded, again, by regulation. What exclusions are being considered?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to step back for a moment, if I may, on a comment the member made. He suggested that if you had forest land without trees on it, it's still considered forest land, which is correct, but it would not qualify for afforestation, because there wouldn't be any trees on it.

What we're talking about is afforestation and the act of planting and ensuring that the trees grow on that land. So I'm not sure that we're connecting here in terms of the commentary, but clearly, the measure would be land that was afforested in order to balance the 6,000 hectares per year that the member earlier referred to, as there would have to be 6,000 hectares. If 6,000 hectares was deforested, 6,000 hectares of forest land that currently does not have forest on it would have to be afforested to achieve the objective. I hope that's clear.

[1045]

The second question is just simply that we thought it was necessary to have the ability to prescribe by regulation if there were areas that needed to be excluded from definitions. We haven't contemplated exactly what those would be, but we thought it was appropriate to have that regulation-making ability.

N. Macdonald: I mean, it's a small point, but I think it's an important point. Let's be clear on afforestation. The definition of "afforestation" means that you do something and you get, as an end result, forest land — right? And forest land, by definition, includes land which does not have any trees on it, only the potential. The minister
[ Page 5294 ]
cannot say that afforestation means that you end up with trees on the land, because afforestation leads to forest lands. That's one point, and the minister has an explanation, so I apologize if I'm confused with that.

Deforestation. There has been, I think, two years that this has been worked on, so there has been quite a bit of time since the promise until now. Clearly, there are examples of things that the minister sees as being excluded by regulation. The ability to exclude seems pretty specifically in there. I realize there might be a need to be flexible, but there must be examples. Does this include mining? What is the minister thinking might be considered as part of the exclusion? There's a list of things that the minister highlighted as causes for deforestation. What are the some of the potentials? Or has that not really been considered at all up to this point?

Hon. P. Bell: I was hoping to answer the first question before we got into the second one. It seems like it's confusing when we try and answer two at the same time.

The difference between the member's comments and my comments is in two letters, and those are "e" and "d." It's the difference between "forest land" and "forested land." The act of afforestation would be to take forest land that may or may not have trees on it and make it forested land. That's the difference and, I think, where the confusion perhaps is here. In order to afforest lands, the lands would then need to become forested lands.

The answer to the second question is: no, we haven't contemplated that. However, we thought it was important to have that regulatory ability, and that's why it's here.

N. Macdonald: Again, not to be a stickler…. The minister talks about forested lands with the "ed," but it doesn't appear in the bill — right? The afforestation refers to the area becoming forest land. It's not forested; it's forest land. The definition the minister gave me of forest land is an area that can be an area that only has the potential to grow trees. Therefore, afforestation means potentially that you don't have any trees on the ground, simply the potential for trees. So the idea of the "ed" has nothing to do with the bill that's in front of us. That's a term that may be out there, but it's certainly not defined in the legislation.

Now, have I misunderstood, or is this the minister's understanding as well?

Hon. P. Bell: All I can do is direct the member to the definition, which says: "'afforestation' means the human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land…." I don't know how much clearer it can be than that.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Just to finish off: "…to such an extent that the area becomes forest land." I mean, I don't want to waste any more time on it, but it seems pretty clear that that's ill-defined at best.

Let's come back to deforestation, then. The minister didn't really offer any examples of exclusions from deforestation. Is the minister saying that they have not considered examples of what would be areas that would be excluded in terms of deforestation?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. We have not contemplated what might be considered for that, but we did think it was prudent to have the ability to make regulations to that effect.

N. Macdonald: How does the government become aware of an area becoming deforested?

[1050]

Hon. P. Bell: We've canvassed this already. It's under section 3 of the bill, and I'm happy to get to it when we get there.

N. Macdonald: It goes to the definition. The definition says deforestation means "the human-induced removal of trees from an area of land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land." So it begs the question: how would the minister know whether deforestation took place or not? The definition sort of begs the question. How would the minister know?

Hon. P. Bell: This is clearly covered under section 3 of the bill. I'm happy to respond to the questions there. If I answer them here, I'm hoping that we won't re-ask them when we get to section 3 of the bill.

The Chair: Member, I think we should be seeing definitions…. There is a section on reporting and how that's going to work. So perhaps some of those questions can hold to section 3.

N. Macdonald: Is the land contemplated within municipal boundaries?

Hon. P. Bell: If it is defined, and it will be defined. Currently what we are contemplating defining by regulation are three different types of land. One would be private land, which could clearly be inside municipal boundaries. The second would be parks, which I suppose also could be inside municipal boundaries. The third would be some form of area-based tenure. There are also area-based tenures, particularly woodlots and community forests, which are located inside municipal boundaries. So I think it would be fair to say yes.

N. Macdonald: Now, the minister has restricted this to human-induced removal of trees. Was there any consideration of historical areas that may have been impacted
[ Page 5295 ]
by slides or washouts? Was there any discussion around including that in deforestation?

Hon. P. Bell: No, the intent of this bill is simply restricted to human-induced behaviour.

N. Macdonald: With afforestation, does this include the possibility of land within municipal boundaries?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm certain that I was just asked that question.

N. Macdonald: Afforestation.

Hon. P. Bell: Oh, afforestation. I'm sorry. Well, clearly, yes.

N. Macdonald: Okay. With net deforestation, it talks about the area — just depending upon area. Just to come back to that, there is absolutely nothing qualitative about judging whether this is a zero-sum game at all. It is totally by area. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

B. Routley: I thank the minister for the opportunity to…. We need to camp here on this section, because definitions are obviously important to the people of British Columbia and certainly all those that have to deal with this. So I would like to know, first under afforestation: have there been any studies done on the impacts of afforestation in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Bell: This has been an area of interest for some time in the province and most recently has been noted in the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report that's dated 2007. But yes, I think it's fair to say there's been a significant amount of work done on deforestation and afforestation in B.C. and in many other jurisdictions.

B. Routley: Yes, I'm aware that there are studies in other countries on the effects of soil erosion and sedimentation issues surrounding afforestation. Could you give us some examples of studies that may have been done in British Columbia on the impact of soil disturbances related to afforestation?

[1055]

Hon. P. Bell: I really think we're edging well beyond the normal types of things that would be canvassed under this debate, but I will try and answer the question in saying that the Forest Practices Board in particular has done significant work on soil erosion in deforested areas and, of course, the chief forester's office as well. There's been extensive research done over the decades on this sort of work, so I'm not quite sure what the member is trying to drive at. If he could maybe bring the debate back a bit to the bill I'll be able to understand it more accurately and answer his question.

B. Routley: The issue of afforestation, of course, brings up the very serious matters and questions that we've been trying to get to the bottom of, including what kind of human-induced activities….

I'm assuming somebody comes in and clears a site. As I understand it — what the minister has said — there's going to be…. At some point, we're going to get to the section where you're going to measure areas that have been deforested so we can do afforestation. So we're going to have some planes, I assume, flying around the province, snapping pictures in infrared, and we're going to study those all carefully and come to some kind of conclusion.

But in terms of the afforestation and the extent to the impact of various sites…. For example, on a sidehill where there's a subdivision — let's use that as an example. There's a decision made to put in a parking lot on the side of a mountain. There's going to be soil disturbances as a result of that deforestation.

Now, when it comes to afforestation, you're going to have to plant a forest in some area that has been cleared by human means for whatever reason, and there could be soil disturbance issues. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it, because there's a different meaning….

I can just give you another example of the meaning of afforestation. It could mean to convert open land into a forest by planting trees or their seeds. There's another straightforward example of what afforestation could mean.

We've got a particularly limiting language in here talking about a "human-induced establishment of trees on an area of non-forest land to such an extent that the area becomes forest land." I'm just asking about…. Anything as important as this that we've been planning for some time now, the development of this language….

Certainly, I've heard the minister in his opening language say that they were going to achieve net zero deforestation by 2015. Well certainly, that's a laudable goal, but in order to get there we need to be able to define these issues and know how much study and time was spent on issues of afforestation and exactly what we know about the impacts of future afforestation.

I assume we're going to move forward with this plan. There's going to be planting and afforestation taking place. What are the potential impacts of sites — like the issue that I'm talking about — in areas where soil disturbances could create other environmental risks, for example?

[1100]

Hon. P. Bell: Afforestation projects would take place under the supervision of a registered professional forester who, based on their responsibilities, will ensure
[ Page 5296 ]
that all the standards are met to ensure that the site is planted in a way that protects the environment and the integrity of the ecosystem that it's operating in.

So those are all prescribed rules under the responsibilities of a registered professional forester. They would also apply here, as they would on any other Crown site in the province of British Columbia.

If it was a private land site, there's a different set of rules that apply. If it was in a community, typically the community has their own sets of rules. If it's outside of the community, then the province, again, regulates those areas.

B. Routley: Under "deforestation," I don't think I heard an answer to this question that's burning in my mind about deforestation. It's "human-induced removal of trees from an area of forest land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land" — okay? So it starts out from an area of forest land, but then it says: "but does not include the removal of trees from any area of forest land that is excluded from this definition by regulation." Good grief. The average person has…. If it was straightforward….

We had an area that had had forest on it. Now deforestation has occurred, whether it's through human deforestation or grazing of animals or fire, all kinds of methods of deforestation. But now, according to this definition, it seems to say "excluded from this definition by regulation," and we have no idea what the regulations are. So could you explain the purpose of….?

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

B. Routley: Through the Chair, could we please have it explained to us what the definition by regulation could include? What's included and what would be excluded by that term?

Hon. P. Bell: The previous questioner canvassed this issue. We put that regulatory ability in place to give us flexibility going forward, and we've not contemplated any particular place where we would use that.

B. Routley: Moving on now to the issue of "non-forest land," it says it "means an area…that has not been forest land at any time after December 31, 1989," or another date described after that. Could you give us examples of some other dates that may apply? Is this some future notion?

While you're considering that question, could you just confirm…? My understanding, in reading this in the fullness of its context, seems to be that zero net deforestation would only mean deforestation that takes place under the impact of this bill between 2012 and 2015. So it's somewhat limited. We're not really talking about net deforestation for the province of British Columbia, for example. We're talking about certain kinds of deforestation in a limited context, and then we're talking about it applying just between a set time period.

The Chair: If I can remind the member to ask questions through the Chair.

Hon. P. Bell: So there were a couple of questions in there. The first one relates back to an issue that was already canvassed. The member asked why December 31, 1989, was picked, or maybe I misunderstood that. Perhaps the question was: why have we created the opportunity to prescribe another date after December 31, 1989?

A couple of reasons around that. Certainly, the United Nations framework on climate change prescribed the December 31, 1989, date. I would suspect that sometime in the future that date may get changed to another date that is later than that — 30 or 40 years from now, one might presume. So I think that having that regulatory ability makes sense. The globe may change in terms of its view of that.

The second question. Now, this is the problem with asking two questions at the same time. Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to ask that again.

[1105]

B. Routley: The issue of the context of zero net deforestation only meaning to apply to the period between 2012 and 2015 — that's in the context of the way it's framed right now. Maybe you partly answered that with this last answer. Are you suggesting that through regulation you'd be able to amend dates, or is it still limited in its impact to the period of time between 2012 and 2015?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize. The question was clear before. The objective of achieving net zero deforestation by 2015 is really the starting point of this and goes forward and is measured every two years beyond that to ensure that net zero deforestation is maintained.

I think the name of the bill best describes it. It is a net zero deforestation, which means that for any area that is deforested, there must be an offset afforestation of that area for that given year. So if 6,000 hectares are deforested in a given year, then the objective is to have 6,000 hectares afforested in that same period of time, leaving you with a net zero sum.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, that could mean a removal of trees from 6,000 hectares and afforestation being complete with no trees, simply land that potentially could grow trees. I mean, let's be clear. By the definition that's here, that the minister has put forward, that's an accurate scenario that is possible.

The minister has repeatedly talked about 6,200. How does the minister arrive at that figure?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear, the member is completely incorrect. It requires the actual reforestation or afforestation
[ Page 5297 ]
of those hectares, so it is the function of actually afforesting those lands in a way that mirrors the number of hectares that are deforested.

The 6,200 was the number of hectares that were deforested in 2007, so we use that number as an example number only. That number will vary from year to year, depending on the circumstances and the type of activity that's taking place in the province.

N. Macdonald: In simple terms, could the minister explain how that number specifically for this year is arrived at? What's the process?

Hon. P. Bell: That's covered in section 3 under the measurement process.

N. Macdonald: In the minister's speech, he used, as an example for afforestation, non-satisfactorily restocked areas. He used that as an example and spoke about an example of a brewery that was moving into an area that I don't think meets the definition for non-forest land. Just to be clear, that example doesn't really refer to what the minister contemplates happening with this bill.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is correct. The land where Pacific Western Brewery is participating in the planting of those 150,000 trees over the next three years would likely not allow them to qualify for afforestation credits or for us to calculate that.

That doesn't mean that they or another company might not want to choose to do that once the regulations are in place and this legislation is in place. But the member is correct in suggesting that the work that Pacific Western Brewery has committed to doing at this point likely doesn't qualify for afforestation credits.

N. Macdonald: Before we move off this section, just to be clear that what is being set up here is for carbon credits and for that trade that the minister anticipates coming. That is the sole reason that this is being set up.

[1110]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: Well, carbon credits could be one of the incentives that could be used to encourage this behaviour. It is only one. Because it is unclear, in our view, where the Western Climate Initiative and other jurisdictions are going on the definition of carbon credits. It may or may not be useful to pursue this. But it certainly would be one of the tools that could be used to encourage afforestation.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

N. Macdonald: This again is a very short section, but it does beg a number of questions. It's "Goal regarding zero net deforestation," and it says: "The government must achieve the goal of zero net deforestation within British Columbia by December 31, 2015." I think the obvious question is why this date?

Hon. P. Bell: It was the throne speech commitment.

N. Macdonald: My understanding is that it's taken two years since this was first talked about to become a bill. If this is something that the government is dealing with in terms of urgency, it just seems…. I think it still begs the question: why does it take that long? Why 2015, the end of 2015? What is so complex about putting this together that it would take that period of time?

Hon. P. Bell: That was the decision that we made as part of our climate change agenda. So 2015 was the date that we believed would meet the objectives of the Crown in meeting its commitments around climate change. That's why that date was chosen.

N. Macdonald: So what relationship does Trees for Tomorrow have with this goal?

Hon. P. Bell: No relationship.

N. Macdonald: What role does Forests for Tomorrow have with this, if any?

Hon. P. Bell: No relationship.

N. Macdonald: Maybe just to speed things through, I'll just mention a number of programs. I'll use the acronyms, if the minister doesn't mind — I'm sure he's more familiar than most — FII, FIA, FFEI and VIA. Are any of those programs associated with what is going on here?

Just as a test for the minister's skill….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: VIA — it's possible I've missed on that one.

Let's do the ones, and as a test for the minister, he can put on to record what the acronyms stand for.

Hon. P. Bell: So the Forestry Innovation Investment, FII, is simply a marketing arm of the province's forest industry so wouldn't have any role in this. The FIA, the Forest Investment Account, while it has no direct relationship to this, I suppose some of the science that is developed in the Forest Investment Account could be used by proponents who are moving forward. But there's no direct relationship between it.
[ Page 5298 ]

The Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative. Again, while perhaps some of the information that is developed there may be utilized by people participating in this program, there's no direct relationship between it either.

VIA is not an acronym I'm familiar with.

N. Macdonald: What are the anticipated costs of the government meeting this goal? Surely when this is put forward, there'll be projected costs. So what are the approximate costs for the government meeting this goal?

Hon. P. Bell: It's very unclear at this point, because it's an incentive-based program utilizing tax incentives.

[1115]

The member earlier mentioned carbon credits, as an example. If carbon offsets or credits become a significant tradeable item, then it could minimize or even create a potential income stream — I suppose, in theory — to the province. So it's unclear.

The goal is set out clearly, though, in terms of 2015, and the mandate is to adjust incentives as necessary to achieve that goal.

N. Macdonald: It's obviously quite nebulous. Hopefully, there's potential in this area, but the minister is still indicating it's quite nebulous. What are some of the other incentives that the minister thinks are possible to be used? Just a list of all the incentives the minister has considered in making this goal possible.

Hon. P. Bell: There are a variety of incentives that are available. I'd certainly be happy to provide the member with the list, but some of the examples are business expense deductions…. Pacific Western Brewing clearly is a company that's chosen to do that.

Charitable donations. Tree Canada has a charitable account where people can donate to that, receive a tax receipt, and trees are planted on that basis.

Revitalization tax exemption. If one were to go into a brownfield site and reforest it, there could be tax exemptions that are brought to bear there.

Lower assessed land value. If a private land owner chose to move their land into private managed forest land, it reduces their tax exposure.

A potentially lower mill rate for managed forest land class. Deferral of DCCs.

Potentially, grants from different organizations. Wal-Mart Canada is an example that's committed $2½ million to greening-the-community program.

Different cost-sharing programs. An example of that would be the environmental farm plan, a previous portfolio I had responsibility for a few years ago.

The Pacific Carbon Trust. The member knows that there's a call for afforestation credits out there right now on that particular issue.

Different conservation initiatives. The Western Climate Initiative we've talked about already, and the voluntary carbon market.

That's an example or a list of some of the possibilities, but I wouldn't suggest that those are necessarily all of them. I'm sure there are other ideas that people will bring forward over time that we'll consider.

N. Macdonald: So there's a list of possibilities that the ministry has not settled on yet. Which penalties are going to be used? Does the minister anticipate penalties as a tool?

Hon. P. Bell: No, we don't. This is an incentive-based program, not a disincentive-based program.

N. Macdonald: Ultimately, which ministry is going to be responsible for the implementation and achievement of this goal?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Forests and Range.

N. Macdonald: If the Ministry of Forests and Range is going to be responsible for the implementation and achievement of the goal, how does that reconcile with the reductions in budget and the realignment of responsibilities? I'll just refer to the report done by the deputy minister that had the ministry now focusing entirely on facilitating the harvesting. How does this reconcile with that new direction for the ministry?

[1120]

Hon. P. Bell: The ministry doesn't see this as being a huge burden. It's much of the work that's done already within the portfolio. But I would point out that we're discussing Bill 5, section 2, not the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

N. Macdonald: I wouldn't be saying anything surprising to say that there are many examples of goals or things that are set in the future that didn't turn out to be, so I think it's a relevant question. If the government must achieve the goal of zero net deforestation, it makes sense that you would have a ministry that would be focused on that.

How many full-time-equivalents does the minister feel it will take to achieve this goal?

Hon. P. Bell: We are confident that we can deliver on this objective within the existing ministry budgets.

B. Routley: On section 2, I was wondering if the minister has put any thought to who would monitor the government. Like, is there any oversight activity going to go on to ensure…? There's a specific goal here with an actual date, and there don't seem to be any penalties attached in any way if you don't meet that date.
[ Page 5299 ]

I would think it would be a natural conclusion that there ought to be oversight or monitoring from an outside body to ensure that the government does what they say they're going to do.

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member asks is directly related to section 3 of the bill.

B. Routley: One last question that I have is: why has the Ministry of Forests and Range not made this issue one of its targets in its latest service plan? Why this date?

Hon. P. Bell: The member might note that the bill was tabled after the service plan was tabled. It would be inappropriate to include a bill that had not yet been tabled or passed in the Legislature in the ministry's service plan.

B. Routley: Just a follow-up to that question, then. Is there any reason that 2014 wasn't chosen, or 2013, for example?

Hon. P. Bell: That question was already asked and answered, Madam Chair.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

N. Macdonald: The reporting on net deforestation, then. It begins with a report on net deforestation within British Columbia for the 2012 calendar year, and then it continues with a report for every subsequent even-numbered calendar year. I guess the first question I'd put to the minister, and I alluded to this in the statements that I made in second reading, is that we have had, in the past, commitments to regular reporting.

I just refer the minister to the state of the forests that the chief forester was supposed to be providing us, which has not taken place. I think the last I heard was that there was going to be a report coming out in 2010. It hasn't to date.

I guess in terms of the commitment that is made there, given that there's at least one example of where that commitment wasn't met, how would the public be sure that this is a time frame that would be met and that the reporting every two years would actually happen?

Hon. P. Bell: This has been defined by legislation. That's the strongest mandate that can be produced by this or any other legislature. I or whoever may be the Minister of Forests in 2012 would have that direct obligation as is defined under this section.

N. Macdonald: The question is: who is going to do the report?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Forests and Range.

N. Macdonald: How will the data be collected?

[1125]

Hon. P. Bell: We discussed this earlier on, and it's going to be done through a combination of remote sensing and actually going out to the field and monitoring sites. It will be done by a combination of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range.

N. Macdonald: The minister talked about a number of jurisdictions that would be included in examples of deforestation. Let's say we're in Prince George. The minister cited Wal-Mart. There's a new Wal-Mart going in on forested land — by definition, land that would fit with that definition.

How does the government become aware of that? What is the process that items like that, like a gravel pit going in a regional district far removed from Victoria…? How does the reporting mechanism work such that you would get the accurate information for the report?

Hon. P. Bell: We'll use the same methodology for measuring deforestation as we will afforestation, and that is a combination of remote sensing and on-site visits.

N. Macdonald: Let's just be specific with the municipality. Is there going to be any requirement for the municipality to inform the government? These are not Crown lands. How would the minister keep track of what's going on within municipalities?

I guess further to that, how big an area does it need to be before the government would start to keep track of it? Are we talking about areas that are similar in scale to what the minister cited as was appropriate for afforestation? Are we talking about any sort of restrictions on the size? Presumably, we're not talking about very small areas. So what are the size restrictions? Within a municipality, how does that information then come to government? I would presume the government does not keep close tabs of those areas but would focus its efforts on Crown land or at least on largely forested land.

Hon. P. Bell: The measures for deforested areas mirror the measures for afforested areas. In other words, if it is under one hectare or under 20 metres in width, it would not be considered to be deforested. So it's the opposite of afforestation. The member asked in terms of communities. How closely do we keep track or can we keep track of deforested areas?

I'd be happy at some point for the member opposite and his co-critic to have a look through some of the quality of material that we have. It is truly amazing. Our ability to measure deforestation is very accurate in the province regardless of whether it's in a community or in
[ Page 5300 ]
the forested land base or anywhere around the province. We do have that technical ability. That will of course only get better, not worse, over time.

To answer the member's question in terms of what we consider to be deforested, it will be the opposite of the afforestation criteria.

N. Macdonald: Just to be clear — and I think the minister has indicated that at this time the ministry does collect that data anyway — even if we asked to use this as a base now for deforestation, the ministry would have available to it information that was accurate and as accurate as the ministry requires going forward into 2012?

[1130]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not allowed to use props in the Legislature, so I won't. I'll just point out that we do have a brochure that talks about deforestation in the province, and there is a graph that actually shows the amount of deforestation. This particular graph goes back to 1990, for no particular reason other than that was the post-1989 period. So we do that work currently, and it is accurate work.

N. Macdonald: Presumably, in the future…. Now, I think what will change about this is…. As I said, if you're going to go into carbon transfer and credits, you enter an area that the public will want to know is highly regulated and does not allow abuse. Therefore, presumably, there are certain areas that you're going to need to tighten up, or that the government will need to tighten up, in terms of its collection of data. With deforestation, is there a thought by the minister to have a process for validation of the ministry's information?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I'll come back to the model of measurement, which will include remote sensing and on-the-ground validation. Yes, that is correct. That's the model that would be used.

The member asked another question. It doesn't relate directly to this bill, but I think it's still worth talking a bit about — that is, the whole notion of moving into the world of carbon credits and what that might mean. The member opposite points out a very reasonable issue, which is validation of carbon offsets. That is, I think, a very important area of public policy that's currently under debate within the Western Climate Initiative and, of course, in other jurisdictions around the world as well.

It will largely frame one potential element of incentives that would go into this program, but the commitment is not directly tied to carbon offsets. The carbon offsets would just form one element of it. But the member is quite accurate. I think that's demonstrated through the value of carbon offsets traded through the voluntary market versus the regulated market.

In the voluntary market I think there is some lack of confidence on the part of the investment community on the legitimacy of those carbon credits. Often they trade for pennies a tonne, whereas verified carbon credits through a regulated agency oftentimes are traded for up to the mid- to high-$20 range per tonne. I think the member's quite accurate in pointing that out. However, it doesn't really relate to this bill.

N. Macdonald: Just in terms, then, of removing it from the scope of carbon credits and just talking about this bill specifically, is there any thought to looking for validation or verification of the ministry's numbers, or will they just stand on their own? What are the minister's thoughts on that?

Hon. P. Bell: The information will be reported publicly. The locations at the sites will be reported. It will be very easy for anyone to go out and validate. I'm sure that there will be lots of people that will be looking at that and confirming that in fact, the reported work is done as was articulated in the report.

N. Macdonald: The minister talked about a number of ways that businesses may participate, may choose to participate, but all of those may or may not happen. In the bill there is a responsibility that the government has to achieve progress, and it talks about actions. What kinds of actions will government be taking to achieve progress?

Hon. P. Bell: I read into the record a few moments ago the list of the types of incentives that the government is currently considering and the way we intend to proceed with this. The reason why we plan on measuring every two years, as opposed to every five years, is that if we find that the incentives are not creating the outcome that we are looking for, then we will increase the level of incentives until they do. If we're finding that we're overachieving and that we don't need to have the level of incentives in place, then we would turn those incentives down. That's our intention going forward.

[1135]

B. Routley: In this reporting process that's going to commence in 2012…. Actually, it'll be after the 2012 calendar year, so it'll be 2013 — the first report. Do I have this correct — that we're going to measure the total deforestation from 1989 forward? I'm just unclear on that whole issue there. You said something about how you've got figures from 1990. You were looking at something that showed net deforestation from 1990. Could I just have some clarification on that, to start with?

Hon. P. Bell: For the member opposite, there's no intention to go back to 1989. That simply defines land that
[ Page 5301 ]
would be considered for afforestation. The period for which we are trying to achieve the objective of zero net deforestation would be between each of the reporting periods. As an example, between 2012 and 2014 — the objective would be to have zero net deforestation in that two-year period. So for each of the reporting cycles, the objective is to have zero net deforestation in that period.

B. Routley: I'm not clear. This first report is going to be done on some information that's gathered, and I assume that's going to be essentially a snapshot, if you like. Technical experts will go out. They'll fly over. They'll give us the technical information, which we can review, that will outline the area that's been deforested that we want to work on for afforestation and give a report.

When exactly is that snapshot going to be taken? Is that at the end of 2012, or is there some other date?

Hon. P. Bell: The snapshot, as the member describes it, is taken every two years, on even-numbered years — 2012, 2014, and so on. The actual goal, where we will achieve zero net deforestation year over year, is 2015.

B. Routley: Okay. Then, as I understand it, the first snapshot will be actually completed in the reporting period at the end of 2012. So that's going to be the first report that shows the amount of deforestation.

Again, as I understand this, there are going to be these planes, and there's this highly technical information that the minister is going to share with us. I look forward to that — to reviewing some of that information. But obviously, with all that flying around, there are going to be carbon issues, and I know the province has made some effort in terms of carbon offsets.

As part of this reporting process that's contemplated in section 3, has there been any thought or are there any conditions that will apply in terms of carbon offsets to all this flying around that's going to take place?

Hon. P. Bell: While some work may be done by aircraft, it's typically work that re-affirms information that we have via satellite imagery. The bulk of this work is actually done by satellite imagery, which as far as I know doesn't produce any carbon — at least, inside our atmosphere. So that would not be an issue.

[1140]

If there is an aircraft, it simply is providing a combination of information. It wouldn't necessarily be used just exclusively for this purpose. We use it for other reasons as well. The government has committed to a zero net production of carbon from its activities, and those obligations will continue to be met.

B. Routley: I know there are some questions about costing, but now that I've learned that it's not going to be planes flying around, that we're going to have this by satellite imagery, could I have some understanding of the costs involved in that? Is there an ongoing cost as a result of that activity? If so, how much would that be? How much, approximately, would it cost for those images?

Hon. P. Bell: We do that work already each and every year, so the information is provided to us. It's just a question of us, again, calculating the information off the satellite photographs that we already purchase.

B. Routley: Just another question about auditing or oversight. The initial report is done in 2012. I'm not exactly clear on what the minister has in mind with those reports. I know they're going to be made public, but is the Auditor General or somebody else going to have oversight of this?

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member asks is actually covered in section 4, which is "Power to make regulations". It gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to determine if there is an auditing agency or other review agencies for the report. But that is covered in section 4 of the bill.

B. Routley: Well, you mentioned the year 1990 — that you had some information for it. So do you have every year? I assume these satellites have been going around reporting data. Now that I know we do this on a regular basis, I don't know whether…. Is it reported just annually or monthly or daily? How often do these reports come in?

If we know already about net deforestation that has occurred…. Again, I'd be very interested in when this satellite reporting started exactly, because there would be quite a story. I'm sure the public would be very interested in when this started. Then, every year we've watched the changes take place in British Columbia and deforestation — certainly all of the development in various areas. So could I have that information, please?

Hon. P. Bell: The first year of this particular work was a very good year, because it was the year I graduated from high school — 1975. That was the initial year that this work was done.

You gave me a little look there, Madam Chair, like you didn't realize I was that old — right?

So 1975 was the first year that this work was done. We have data from 1975 forward. It's not done every year, though. The analysis is done perhaps every five or six years. But then we take the information that we know about development-based activities going on in the province and try and fill in the gaps in those interim years.

Of course, this new requirement will encourage us to do that work more frequently. The satellite imagery that
[ Page 5302 ]
we have is much better today. It is information that we purchase on an ongoing basis, so the actual cost of the acquisition of those satellite images will not impact our budget.

N. Macdonald: Just one final question on this section. Just to clarify the wording here. It says: "Beginning with a report on the net deforestation…for the 2012 calendar year…." The presumption would be that the reporting will take place after 2012. So what is the date that the minister anticipates for the report for 2012 to be released?

[1145]

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just note for the member that the specifics are as soon as reasonably practicable for each year. I'm told that, historically, to collate that information and bring it forward takes anywhere from six months to a year, so that's probably the appropriate time frame. I would expect that over time we'll get better at it, and it will be easier to report in a shorter period of time, but that's the historical number — six months to a year from the time the end of the calendar year occurs.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand, the report could come out anywhere from…. If you collected the data during 2012 and it could take up to a year, we would expect the first report by December 2013 at the latest. If that's the case, then the second report would come out in 2015? Is that the scope that the minister is looking for — that the "every two years" would be starting on that date, December 2013? Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: As I said, the historical compilation timetables have taken us between six months to a year. The member suggests a date that is on the year side of that, and it may be quite possible. But that's the historical time frame. I do expect that over time we will get better at calculating the information and will be able to do it more rapidly. As I mentioned to the member earlier, historically we've only collected this information about every five years. If we're doing it more frequently than that, I would think that over time we'll get better at it and be able to do it quicker.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

N. Macdonald: Just within this very, very short bill, one thing after another has been left to regulation. It has been left to be decided later or is ill-defined, and then you get to the biggest section, which is the power to make regulations. Basically, those regulations are very difficult to scrutinize. This is really where the meat of the decision-making takes place, and it's away from scrutiny. It essentially sits with the cabinet, and as the minister knows, cabinet documents are not available to the public. I guess the question is: why the decision to really put very few specifics into the bill?

Hon. P. Bell: The member will likely know that this is not common practice globally. While I understand that Australia may have a net zero deforestation objective, I'm not aware of any other jurisdictions in Canada or North America that have passed legislation. This is, in my view, cutting-edge legislation.

I think that people should be proud of British Columbia's commitment to a goal of net zero deforestation. I know that the member supports it, because he's already voted in favour of the bill at second reading. So the spirit of the bill, clearly, he supports. But it is something that's new globally, and British Columbia again takes a leadership role. Providing the flexibility to create regulations to achieve this objective or goal, I think, is the appropriate way to go.

N. Macdonald: It's the detail that's really important. We've talked about carbon credits, but really, any of the tax incentives, any of the measures that the minister listed as possibilities all have an impact on the public purse, and they are all open to abuse. All of these processes, like any of these measures, are open to abuse.

One of the challenges with regulation is that it's more difficult to have the scrutiny applied to what is going on. I think the minister would agree that that's a function that normally the Legislature is supposed to provide. I guess the minister would share the public's interest in wanting to be informed about who is trying to influence regulations.

[1150]

Just a question for the minister on how the minister intends to keep the public informed about who is trying to influence regulations. Who is involved in the process of choosing the various strategies the government comes forward with? What guarantees or assurance can the minister give that this process is going to be as transparent as it needs to be?

Hon. P. Bell: Our interest in the development of the regulations will engage the public, First Nations communities and others in making sure that the regulations developed do meet the objective.

We do think that this needs to be an iterative process with the public, because it is intended to create an incentives-based regime that will allow us to achieve the goal. That means either increasing or decreasing incentives, probably every couple of years, until we find the appropriate place.

I think that all will likely change, as well, as the evolution of carbon credits comes forward, depending on where that all lands. That is our intent — to go through that process in an iterative way with the public.
[ Page 5303 ]

I think that the member asked perhaps one other question, although I'm not entirely sure it was asked. Could there be undue influence brought to me as the minister, to other members of cabinet by parties that have a specific interest, a financial interest in this area? Of course, the lobbyists act has been recently strengthened and I think is leading Canada now in terms of its intent to ensure that lobbyists are identified, registered and their activities are registered. In the event that a company were to have a specific financial interest, it would clearly have to register under that act and make its activities known publicly.

N. Macdonald: I think that the minister sort of alluded to the fact that there would be a public process. Some of these questions may have been implicitly answered, but I'll just ask explicitly. If you don't mind, I'll give you a series of questions. Hopefully, they relate enough that it will be simple to answer.

Do draft regulations exist? If they do exist, will the minister release them? If they don't exist, then what is the timeline that the minister sees for drafting the regulations? The minister talked about public input. Has the minister decided what the public input process would look like?

Hon. P. Bell: Do draft regulations exist? No. I'm sure the member knows, even though he asked the question, that it wouldn't be possible for me to share a cabinet document with him.

The timeline. As soon as the act is passed, our intent is to start working on those regulations.

The public input. We have a pretty detailed list of different organizations that we think we should be talking to, but also, we plan on holding public meetings around the province in different locations to accept that input as well.

I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $5,164,904,000.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We're going to start with the estimates for the Ministry of Education. But just before we start that, I'd like to recognize the newly recruited summer tour guides that are in the back there. They're working at the Legislature for the next few months.

Welcome. It's going to be a very exciting morning for you.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm pleased to present the 2010-11 budget estimates for the Ministry of Education. I'd like to start by introducing the Ministry of Education staff members who are here to assist me. This morning James Gorman, the deputy minister, is with me. Behind me is Keith Miller, assistant deputy minister, resource management division, and to my left is Rick Davis, superintendent of the achievement division.

We also have additional staff members who will be available should we need them. They include Paige MacFarlane, assistant deputy minister, partnerships and planning division; Renate Butterfield, assistant deputy minister, knowledge management division; Peter Owen, assistant deputy minister, governance and accountability division; and Reg Bawa, director, funding and compliance branch.

The March budget set out the commitments that will carry us through the next year, as we continue to face the global recession. We see signs of improvement, but we are still facing the challenges that the recession has brought to us. The next year, of course, is important to the future of education in B.C. We are committed to protecting vital health care and education services that British Columbians rely on.

In order to make the most of the funding and move our system forward, districts need to find administrative savings that they can redirect to the classroom. This requires that sometimes challenging decisions be made by all levels of government and that careful consideration is given to spending in order to avoid the risk of creating
[ Page 5304 ]
a financial burden that would be carried by our children and grandchildren.

There's no better investment we can make towards B.C.'s long-term health and stability than to invest in the education of our children. That's why we're focusing our efforts on keeping funding in the classrooms and in the places where students learn — so enhancing early learning programs and increasing public access to community space through our neighbourhood learning centres.

We know that B.C. has one of the best education systems in the world. We want to continue to support that education system to make sure we reach our goal of becoming the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America.

[1010]

Though kindergarten-to-grade-12 enrolment has actually declined by about 56,000 students since 2001, we have continued to increase funding each year for our classrooms in British Columbia. This year, at $4.66 billion, we'll be providing the highest block operating funding to school districts ever in the history of the province.

The budget tabled in March has provided an increase of $112 million in operating funding for 2010-2011. This increase includes full funding for the implementation of full-day kindergarten and the increase in costs due to negotiated teachers' wage settlements. Per-pupil funding is also increasing this year, estimated to be $8,301 for 2010-11 compared to $6,262 back in 2000-2001.

In order to ensure that dollars are being kept close to students in classrooms and other places they learn, all levels of government must look and are looking for ways to find administrative savings. For example, our ministry has turned to electronic meetings and teleconferencing to reduce our travel costs. We expect all school districts to fully explore every opportunity for administrative savings that can be better invested in the classrooms, and we've asked boards of education to look at more innovative and cost-effective ways of doing business as well.

We have many examples of this around the school districts. We have a district in the Okanagan where there's a skill set that allows them to provide Workers Compensation Board services to 30 different districts — so minimizing the amount of staff that are required for those kinds of services. In Chilliwack multiple schools have been combined under one administrative umbrella, and principals and vice-principals are sharing duties in a way that they haven't in the past. This has been a bold step, but decisions like this have ensured that dollars are spent on our most valuable resource — our children and their education.

If cost savings can be found through partnerships on things like common payroll systems, sharing information technology and other business services, we think that we're obliged to consider and actually make these things happen.

Budget 2010 ensures that we're keeping dollars in the classroom and have the resources to protect the world-class level of education in British Columbia from kindergarten to grade 12. Certainly, one of the areas that we're most proud of is our investment in early learning.

Our government recognizes the importance of investing in early learning because we know that the first few years of school are absolutely critical to long-term success. So over the next three years we've committed $280 million to implement full-day kindergarten for all the five-year-olds in B.C. Starting in September of 2010, full-day kindergarten will be available for half of our students, and by the fall of 2011 every five-year-old will have the option — their families will have the option — to attend full-day kindergarten in our province.

There's certainly an increasingly large body of research from around the world that supports the long-term benefits of early learning programs like full-day kindergarten. We know that the students have better achievement as they go through the school system, and we also know that there's decreased criminal activity — and many other advantages to putting this investment early on for these learners. In addition to full-day kindergarten, prior to this we've also invested in StrongStart B.C. programs. Currently there are more than 310 StrongStart B.C. centres all around the province.

We're also investing in a new area, neighbourhood learning centres. This is the vision for the future of British Columbia education. It's a vision that will see schools and community organizations partnering to create neighbourhood learning centres where people can access educational and community services under one roof. To date, we've announced 11 of these in eight different school districts around B.C., but all school districts are being encouraged to move toward this inclusive approach to planning the use of new school space and including elements of neighbourhood learning centres in all new and replacement schools.

The neighbourhood learning centres support our commitment to see that schools and school lands are being used for maximum public benefit. Some of the examples we have include having libraries, senior centres, day cares, some health facilities and a whole host of different ideas, depending on which neighbourhood you go to for these neighbourhood learning centres. But certainly you're going to have schools that will be the hub of communities and will house things that will be used from first thing in the morning often till late in the evening and weekends as well — so really using the public space to the best of our ability.

Through the vision of the throne speech and supported by Budget 2010, we're not only protecting but improving educational services for British Columbians. Each item in this budget must be seen as a step in the direction of ensuring that our future generations in B.C. will have a healthy economy and a strong education system, because
[ Page 5305 ]
we know that education is the cornerstone of a child's future prosperity and opportunity.

This budget is the path we need to follow to build a stronger B.C. at this time and in the future.

[1015]

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for her opening comments. It's very nice to see the staff here. Thank you so much for coming. I think the minister would agree that ministers and opposition members come and go, but it's the wonderful civil service of British Columbia that keeps this province running well, and we're very honoured to have such a professional civil service.

I'd like to start by asking some general questions that pertain to funding. I think that during the course of our questions today we'll be coming back to funding issues, because it does sort of pertain to a whole bunch of other issues. But to start with, I'm just going to ask some general questions around funding.

The minister mentioned the lift in public education funding this year of $112 million. Could the minister just apprise us: what portion of that was for full-day kindergarten — or the introduction of it — and teacher salary lift?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to thank the member opposite for acknowledging the strength of the staff, because I entirely concur. I've been impressed since day one with the dedication of these people who are here through thick and thin and with governments changing. They're very hard-working and dedicated people, so thanks for that acknowledgment.

It took us a little time as we were discussing this, because one of the challenges is that when we received the budget…. It is the government's budget fiscal year, but we translate it into the school year, which is on a different calendar year, and you're aware of that. But the dollar amounts are $58 million for full-day kindergarten funding and $54 million for the teachers' negotiated salary wage increase.

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Could the minister please apprise us of what the estimated costs are of the following items: the teacher pension increase, which I believe is 1.04 percent; the estimated carbon offsets; the MSP premium increase for this year; the deployment of SmartTool; the estimated B.C. Hydro rate and what that increase means to the school system; and lastly, the CUPE trade adjustment and what that means to the school system?

If I could get those figures broken down, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

[1020]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Several questions, a number of which are actually difficult for me to address. A number of the costs that they face — and certainly we acknowledge that school districts are facing some pressures; no question about that — are very difficult to quantify.

They're not certain about the number of students that will come to districts. They've estimated it, but in many cases they estimate incorrectly, and so the numbers change. If they have more students coming to the district than they had predicted, then more funding will flow.

In the case of teachers, we know how many teachers are in the system now. We know that a number of layoff notices have been sent out, but we also know that in many cases a number of those layoff notices are rescinded. So the number of teachers that will be in the system will also not be known for quite a few months.

[1025]

Certainly we also know that a majority of our school districts, because of the demographics of British Columbia, are facing declining enrolment. In no case will funding actually be lower, and in the case of the districts that have a significant enrolment increase, they are having significant funding increases as well. In the districts where there are fewer students, some of the cost pressures they have will be offset by the fact that they do get per-pupil funding, but it will not go down from the previous funding levels.

I did want to say that we will get one of these numbers for you, because we do know the number, but we don't have it with us here. That's the CUPE trade adjustment. I understand that funding for that is increased…. Oh, sorry, it's right here before me. The trade adjustment is $3.2 million, but it is within the block. That funding is included within the block this year.

R. Austin: Well, in order for the ministry to have allocated funding specifically to all-day K and to the teacher increase, many of the issues that the minister just mentioned are still some of the variable factors that go into arriving at those two figures. So I'm a bit surprised that the ministry doesn't take into consideration all those variable factors and still come up with answers to the questions that I just asked.

I do want to put on the public record some of the estimates that have come out from the money people who run the individual school districts, the association of business officers, which essentially are the secretary-treasurers of all the school districts in the province. I'll start off with the CUPE trades adjustment because it shows how close they are to the answer that the minister just gave me. They estimated it at $3.312 million, and the minister said $3.2 million, so we're certainly in the ballpark there.

Their estimate of the increase to B.C. Hydro for the entire province is $2.4 million. Their estimate for the deployment of SmartTool is $444,000. The MSP premium increase, which I think the ministry would have no
[ Page 5306 ]
difficulty coming up with — because they do know essentially, give or take within a few percentage points, the number of people who work in the school system, and of course, MSP is directly related to those costs — they estimate at $2.84 million. The estimated cost of carbon offsets is almost $6 million.

The big one here is the increase in the school district's portion of the teacher pension increase, which of course is something that is mandated by law, so it's not something that school districts can alter in any way. That's a big one. That's $23 million.

I wonder if the minister could comment on some of these estimates, because this goes to the nub of the problem that we have in education currently. The government says, quite rightly, that there has been an increase year over year over the last ten years. I've been here for five of them, so I acknowledge that there has been an increase in education funding over the last years, certainly the ones that I've been here, and I know it goes back beyond that.

The challenge, though, for those people who work in the education system and for parents and for everyone who's involved is that there are so many costs that go beyond those things that have been allocated for. As the minister says, the $112 million covers these two things. It covers the teacher salary increase, and it covers the increase in all-day kindergarten funding. As I've just mentioned, there are so many other costs here, and there are others we'll go into later on that aren't covered.

The challenge is: how do these school districts manage to cover these shortfalls of all the other items? It's all well and good to say that we want to have administrative costs. I mean, obviously everywhere in government we are constantly looking for administrative savings. But if we were to take the total of these estimates….

I think it's fair to say that secretary-treasurers are not political people. They usually stay right in the background. They never get involved in politics. They just do their jobs. They're essentially accountants. But they have come out in the last year because they've obviously reached a level of frustration. They put this document out just to enlighten British Columbians as to the various costs that are not being covered.

I guess my question to the minister is: does she recognize that there are many, many costs beyond the ones that she has allocated increased coverage for? And does she also recognize that if all of these costs were to be made by administrative savings, there would be no one left running the schools? I mean, there would be no administration.

[1030]

We can't make these kinds of savings. Even if we got rid of every school board trustee, every superintendent, we can't come anywhere close to this. And this is just in one fiscal year.

I'm just wondering how the minister would react to those people who say that it's the reason why so many of our districts are having a funding shortfall and are having to make so many cuts. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do appreciate the acknowledgment from the member opposite about the substantial increases to education funding that we have put into place in the last ten years.

I know the member opposite is aware, but I am going to review the details for the record, which are that there have been annual increases every single year for the last ten years. We've increased funding overall since 2000-2001. The funding has actually gone up $1.3 billion.

In the meantime our student population has actually declined by 56,000 students. Next fall school districts are predicting that there will actually be 60,000 fewer students, and a decision was made by government a number of years ago that even if a school district had less students coming to that district, the funding would actually stay at least the same. So when the districts go down in the number of students they have, they actually will not have their funding levels decreased. It's recognized that when students leave a district, there are still some pressures there.

[1035]

To your point about the pressures facing districts, we do acknowledge that there are pressures that school districts face and that there are pressures that all levels of government face. But in consultation with districts earlier this year prior to the budget coming down, what they did say to us is that far and away their greatest concerns were that full-day kindergarten and the negotiated salary increases would be funded.

Certainly, we heard a number of school districts acknowledging that when they saw the budget come out, they were very relieved. They were concerned that in a time of such fiscal challenge for government and in a time when many governments are actually reducing education and other funding across government that we were able to provide these increases this year.

R. Austin: I'd like the minister to let us know what the ministry estimates as the cost for school districts to implement and report using the BCeSIS system.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The cost of BCeSIS is $21 per student, and the cost is shared. There's a $10 contribution by the ministry and $11 by school districts. This is an information system that is, I believe, five years old now.

This is something that school boards can sign on to voluntarily. They chose whether or not they would become part of this, but in fact, all 60 school districts are currently using it in one way or another. It currently contains the records of more than 563,500 students and early learning in more than 1,550 schools, including not only public schools but some independent First Nations schools also.
[ Page 5307 ]

Previously, before we had BCeSIS, all of the schools in the province had one of several information systems, and there were many much costlier alternatives for them.

[1040]

The systems couldn't communicate with each other and made reporting much more difficult in terms of the kinds of things that the ministry needs to have reported to us.

Hopefully that gives you the answer you needed.

R. Austin: The $10 fee that students were charged for the first five years to get the project going…. It's anticipated that there's going to be an increase needed in order to upgrade and further develop the system. I'm wondering if the ministry is thinking about funding that to school districts.

Like any new large computer system that is provincewide, I'm sure the minister has also heard that while it is an asset to have something that's universal across the province, I know that teachers sometimes get very frustrated with it because, of course, it's at the same time of the year that every teacher in the province is trying to input data when report card time comes around. The system often crashes as a result of thousands of people trying to access the system at any one time.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that, on whether there's going to be upgrading to allow it to do the job when it's under huge pressure. And if there are going to be upgrades to the system, will those be covered to local school districts?

[1045]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is and has been regular consultation with teachers and administrators as long as BCeSIS has been in existence. Currently there's a management council, which is made up of school district officials, and they actually run the system and help to steer decisions in terms of upgrades and the direction things will go in. So it has always been a consultative process where people who are actually using the system definitely have input.

Just speaking about funding generally, though — it's something I meant to say in a previous answer, and it really goes to this as well — government used to provide more of a function-based funding to school districts, where there was a whole bunch of line items. You got this many dollars for this and this many dollars for that. It was actually in consultation with school boards and with superintendents that we shifted to our per-pupil model, where there's far more autonomy for a school district and far greater ability for them to choose.

They have funding that's actually based on the number of students they have. Where there's a student, there's funding provided. Then, within that funding provision, different school districts make decisions about what they will and won't do, and they do have the ability to do that. It's a very diverse province, and the needs in each of the school districts vary as well. So we have really shifted very much away from the system where there was a line item for each different cost that is there for a school district.

Although there are always discussions about the way that we provide funding…. Certainly, the ministry is constantly reviewing that to make sure we're doing the best for our students. What we would note is that since we shifted from that kind of funding to our current funding, at the time when that funding was in place, I think there were something like 16 or 17 districts that had significant deficits, and in our current model it is very rare for a district to actually carry forward a deficit.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a couple of questions with regards to funding changes that happen during the school year. In the last few years the basis of funding sometimes has changed right in the middle of the year, and this leaves the districts in a very difficult position because they can't count on the funding that has been promised. I'm going to give a couple of examples.

In 2008-2009 the ministry changed the formula for funding students partway through the year, moving to a course-based funding from student-based funding for secondary schools. Now, I know that this was solved at the time by the previous minister. There was a big upcry about it, and a change was made. That's just an example.

Another one was last year, 2009-2010, when the enrolment decline was only half that projected at the beginning of the year. The ministry changed the per-student allocation, reducing it to keep the same total funding but divided among more students.

The ministry, I think, should have maintained the per-student allocation so that boards received the resource levels that they had been promised because, of course, they plan based on the previous year.

My question to the minister is: why was this done? Doesn't this kind of accounting practice and moving the goalposts in the middle of the year make the whole debate on public education funding the challenge that it is? Instead of allowing schools to plan and take care of the needs of each and every child who enters the system, they're suddenly having to address a funding change or formula change in the middle of the year.

[1050]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First of all, I would certainly like to acknowledge the point that you've made about the challenges of school districts doing their work to form their budgets and that midyear changes would certainly be problematic. However, as you acknowledged, two years ago when such a change happened it was dealt with and resolved.

One of the things we do to assist school districts is actually provide three-year allocations, so we tell them in our budget. It gives them, really, an idea about what the minimum amount is that they could expect over the
[ Page 5308 ]
next three years. The pattern governments actually had was that the three-year going-forward amounts…. Often there's been additional funding provided, but certainly, they know what the minimum amount they would be expecting over the next three budget years would be, to do some forward planning.

In terms of the holdback, though, what happens is that each year the school districts do the best they can to forecast the number of students that they'll have. But it's very difficult, because there are always students moving around the province, moving in and out from other places. It's challenging for them to get the number exactly right. So what the ministry does is hold back funds each year, which are then flowed out to districts as they find out, "Actually, we have a hundred more students," or whatever the case might be.

Certainly, although the member is under the impression that last year their per-pupil funding was reduced, it wasn't. When the held-back amount was held back…. When it was flowed out, the per-pupil grant remained the same for districts. There was not a change or a reduction in that amount last year.

R. Austin: Could I just get a clarification from the minister with regards to the annual facilities grant? I know the reason why it was cancelled. I've heard that many times before and acknowledge that.

[1055]

My question is simply this. Am I correct in saying that it's being returned not as $110 million per fiscal year or per school year but actually over two years? Am I correct that it's actually $110 million coming back, but over two years and not after one? So it is, essentially, half what it used to be prior to it being pulled for that one year when there was a fiscal crisis in the province.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: For this year we have been able to provide $110 million, as the member opposite has said, for the annual facilities grant to school districts. We were able to provide that funding, which we know is so vitally important to districts for their management.

We've been able to provide that through having been very careful with our fiscal management. We did have money that was left, which we were able to announce right at the end of the last fiscal year. Altogether there is $110 million that districts have.

One of the things that they told us was that the earlier they could know what the grant would be, the better that would be, because most of the facilities' work, certainly in some parts of the province, is done in the summer, for two reasons. One is the weather conditions in much of the province, and the other is, of course, that the facilities mostly don't have students in them. So we have been able to provide this.

One of the things districts were very pleased about is that they actually heard about this as of mid-March. The funding is available to them until March of next year. In all, there is $110 million there, and we were pleased to be able to provide that.

R. Austin: I'm looking at a document here, and maybe the minister could explain this. This document was given at the budget lockup, and it has as the top item here "Infrastructure-related." It's the AFG seismic and leases. It has $66 million for 2009-10 restated estimates and then $59 million for 2010-2011. I'm not quite understanding. Isn't that the $110 million but over two years, not one fiscal year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think the thing that's important from the school district point of view is that they have $110 million that they can now spend on projects that are important. But the member is correct. The source of the funding is from two different fiscal years.

The reality is that because it came quite late in the previous year, they'll be spending it going forward, and there is the $110 million available.

[1100]

R. Austin: I'd like to just ask a question about salary differentials. School boards last year received less than what had previously been expected around salary differentials. Of course, this makes a huge difference to certain districts because they have to attract teachers to live in, say, remote places, so there's a salary differential for that. At the beginning of the school year, this is what they were expecting for each individual school district. Did the funding formula for salary differentials change in the middle of the year, and why was that?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question. First of all, let me say that the formula did not change last year with respect to salary differentials. The formula was based on a comparison between the average salary in the district that had the lowest salaries and the average salary in the district in question.

What happened last year is that the average salary in that lowest district actually came up, so it increased. And so the difference between all of the districts and that low number…. Because that low number came up, the difference was lower. So school districts did have less money coming to them than they had anticipated.

I'm told by ministry staff that three years earlier the opposite happened, where that low number actually got lower. So school districts actually got considerably more money — in fact, something like $35 million more — than they had been anticipating. So understanding all of this…. We didn't change the formula last year on advice from the technical review committee, because we recognized these swings are difficult. They're difficult
[ Page 5309 ]
for government when we have to find $35 million, and they're difficult for districts when they have to find a similar amount.

What happened is that based on the technical review committee's recommendations, now the formula actually does look different to try to make sure that this doesn't happen again. But I think the most important thing is that the formula itself, the way that we flowed the funding, didn't change.

[1105]

D. Thorne: I have a few questions for the minister and ministry staff around the area of students with special needs, which I think is one of the areas of great concern — class composition and adequate supports for students with special needs. Many people in British Columbia and in the school system feel that there are inadequacies of funding in this area, that they are substantial and that the grants for this year are not going to help very much — in fact, maybe even make the situation worse.

Looking at the lack of increased funding for, in particular, low incidence categories…. I think the fact that we're not increasing funding is forcing school districts to ration assistance for children with special needs, even though their IEPs have a plan in place that states that assistance for these children is necessary for them to succeed.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us, for the record, how the ministry is feeling about this. Do they think this is okay, or is there something in the works to try and mitigate this situation?

[1110]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Firstly, addressing how funding works for these students. For the students who have needs, such as gifted students or students with learning disabilities, back in 2002 the ministry changed how funding would flow. It used to be that districts had to fill in a lot of forms and do a lot of justification to receive funding for those students. At that time that funding was actually put into the block funding, and at the time it was about $250 million to address the needs of those students. No longer did paperwork have to be done. It was part of the block funding.

That funding has increased as the per-pupil funding has increased. I don't have an exact dollar amount, but it will have grown as the per-pupil funding has grown. Per-pupil funding has grown by…. It's not going to be 33 percent because that goes back to 2000, but it certainly would have grown substantially.

For students who have the low-incidence needs, we have actually provided…. As of next year there will be increased funding for them. So the funding will have gone for level 1 students from $32,000 a year up to $36,600. That change will take effect this school year. For level 2, it will go from $16,000 to $18,300, and for level 3 students it will go from $8,000 to $9,200.

D. Thorne: As districts make cuts to balance their books due to the shortfall in funding that they have now, they are forced to lay off special education teachers, counsellors and teacher-librarians. They do this for the obvious reason — that they are non-enrolling teachers. Bill 33 already puts pressure to maintain certain class-size and composition rules.

Given the increase in children with special needs, how do the ministry and the minister expect school districts to cope with this dilemma?

[1115]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Firstly, I think the districts, when they have students with special needs in levels 1, 2 and 3, actually will let us know their projections. But if their numbers are higher as the school year goes on, there's additional funding in that holdback which will come forward, and as I've mentioned, the levels of funding have increased in each of those categories.

With respect to educators, though, the member has spoken of reductions, but we have data going back to 1997, and certainly since 2003 the number of special education teachers is actually up. When we look at education assistants, those numbers are also up significantly. Those numbers for us go back to 2001, and we do see increases in those numbers in the system.

D. Thorne: Well, I'm a bit confused by the minister's answer about the number of special ed teachers increasing because in this chart, which I'm assuming is accurate, in 2008-09 there were 3,445 special ed teachers, and in 2009-10 there were 3,382 special ed teachers. So the figures that I have…. I'm prepared to be given new figures to show that these are wrong, but it looks to me like the numbers are decreasing, not increasing — and more being laid off this year, as we all know.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: You're right; we do have different numbers. I'm told by staff that the numbers that you have are…. It is a document that goes out to the public, and it's based on budgets. It's based on the projections that come from the school districts.

What we have is what actually happened. It's the later numbers. This just goes to the fact that there are changes through the school year. The districts come forward with their best guesses, their best estimates, and come up with numbers. So I do have slightly different numbers, and I'll just go over what I spoke of.

[1120]

In 2002-2003 there were 3,179.4 special education teachers, and last year, in 2009-10, there were 3,403.4. So it's up, and that's what I said. However, the member is correct that since last year there was a small decline. The number we have for 2008-09 is 3,449. This year it was 3,403.

With respect to the education assistants, back in 2001-2002 there were 6,896, and last year there were 8,877. I
[ Page 5310 ]
won't read all the numbers, but they are up year over year.

D. Thorne: I think when you talk about support staff or special assistants increasing, obviously one of the reasons that they have increased in school districts because of increases with special needs kids is because they're cheaper, and school districts cannot afford to hire as many teachers as they can special education assistants.

That also comes back to the cutting back of support for funded special needs. With many more students with special needs, we have a much higher incidence of high-incidence set of needs.

These students are supposed to be identified and provided with appropriate specific support as defined by an IEP. However, there was no specific funding for these students. It is all rolled into block per-capita funding, which produces many problems, including significant inequities. This distribution of students with special needs is not uniform among districts or communities, but there is also no recognition of this in the funding formula, which causes a lot of problems.

My question is to the minister. Why does the funding formula not address these inequities? An example of that would be in school district 82, which uses up far more to service kids with special needs in order to not leave kids in the lurch.

[1125]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Specifically speaking about recognizing the differences between school districts, this year school district 82 is actually receiving approximately $10,101 per student, and the average around the province is $8,301. So there's some recognition there for many unique differences and challenges that cause increased costs in school district 82. Because of the changes in the funding for level 1, 2 and 3 students with special needs, there will actually be an increase of $49 million in this year's budget for those students alone.

With respect to the block where the other funding exists and has since 2002. I know that you're aware of this, but I'll just remind you that the overall funding to the block is actually up by $1.3 billion. That's at the same time as the number of students is down by 56,000 and anticipated to be down by probably about 60,000 by next fall.

D. Thorne: Yes, I am aware of those figures, of course. But I was specifically referring to special needs children rather than overall numbers in the province for registrations and the fact that the block funding is a bit of a problem for many, many districts. In fact, it is that form of funding that is causing a lot of the problems with Bill 33 and with meeting the needs of special needs children. So I just want to have that also put on the record.

My next question is pretty much around that same area. We know that there may be a decrease in children across the province, but there is an increase in children with special needs. All of the data that we see, and I'm sure that you and the ministry see, demonstrates that there's a trend to have fewer teachers with those special skills, as I referred to a few minutes ago — not special education assistants or support staff but actual teachers with special training for teaching children with special needs.

I know the ministry is aware of this, and I'm wondering what the ministry and the minister are planning to do to assist school districts to solve this really quite horrific problem.

[1130]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The information that I have for the level 1, 2 and 3 students with special needs is that the districts are forecasting, actually, a slight decline in numbers.

[1135]

Now, that is just their forecast, but last year it was over 23,000, and they're forecasting that number is actually going to go down a bit. Those are the students where we're actually going to have $49 million of additional funding for the level 1, 2 and 3 in the 2010-11 amount because the level 1, 2, and 3 funding has actually increased.

For high-incidence students with special needs…. When the money was rolled into the block in 2002, the numbers across districts were about 5 percent. I'm told by staff that that was fairly consistent across districts. There wasn't much variation between districts. We have information now that that number today is about 6 percent, so it has gone up.

It appears to be stable for at least the last couple of years. It's not measured in the same way, though, because there's not the necessity for schools to actually apply for funding because it is in the block. In terms of what has happened to the block, the funding over that time is up roughly 30 percent, so the per-pupil grant has approximately increased by that much.

D. Thorne: I'm going to ask a question about Bill 33, a law that is being broken each and every day across British Columbia, and I'm going to ask the minister why this is happening and what she and the ministry are intending to do about this.

[1140]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The superintendents across each school district have to file a report each year where they state that they are in compliance with the School Act, section 76.1, so that they are in compliance, and those reports have been filed.

The misunderstanding with the member opposite may be because of the nature of this act, which has built-in flexibility. When this legislation was put into place, all
[ Page 5311 ]
of our partners — the parents, the trustees, the superintendents — except for the B.C. Teachers Federation were very much in favour of having flexibility built into the School Act, to this part of the legislation.

What that flexibility allows is that with consultation and ensuring that learning needs will be met for students, in some cases class sizes are larger. The best examples around the province of these, and certainly I've seen some of them, are classes like drama and band, which have significantly larger class sizes, and it's actually to the benefit of the students to have those larger groups for certain kinds of learning.

D. Thorne: I guess one can assume, then, from your answer that Bill 33 is, in fact, a pretty flexible law, that it's not adhered to in a strict kind of way, that one could take it a step further. One might be able to almost apply for dispensation to break the law and have more special needs children or whatever you're doing to break the law — because that was my question.

Bill 33 states the maximum number of students in a class and the percentage of special needs children — the maximum, the highest level. That's my understanding of Bill 33. I keep hearing as Education critic, and especially living in Coquitlam, in the third-biggest school district…. I've heard many, many times from teachers about classes that are, in fact, breaking the law — the law being Bill 33.

Anyway, I'm going to leave that because, noting the time, I did have one final question in this area that I would like to ask. I would appreciate, if there's any information that…. I see one of your assistants obviously wants to say something, so we could maybe talk later about that. I just wanted to get that into the record there.

I'm looking at special needs testing as the final area. Personally, it's of great concern to me. I worked at a social service agency in Coquitlam for many years where we did a lot of special needs testing, at SHARE Family and Community Services.

I know that there's no money in some school districts to even get special needs testing done. The kids are basically moved on before they even get tested. That results in many, what they're calling, grey-area kids, grey-area children. They've never been tested or are having trouble getting testing.

I'm wondering if there's any thought being given by the ministry to try and deal with this area about testing and to get some more people into these school districts that are in real trouble and get some testing done to try and at least get it to a balancing point.

The Chair: If I could remind members that there's no discussion on legislation. The wording will have to be worded back towards Vote 27.

If I could ask the minister to call the question, you could respond after.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175