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)

Monday, May 17, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 7

[ Page 5383 ]

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, what a delight. It's not often that we in this chamber have an opportunity to welcome former Premiers back to this chamber, but today is one such day. It's worth noting that in addition to the many years of public service that Ujjal Dosanjh rendered in this chamber prior to becoming our 33rd Premier, as I recall, in the province of British Columbia, he has gone on to continue rendering public service not just in British Columbia but, indeed, across this country as a minister and now, still, as a Member of Parliament.

I know that all members in the chamber will want to pay tribute not just to his presence here today but to his ongoing service in the cause of this province and this country and to welcome his wife, Raminder, who is in the chamber with us as well.

[1335]

I want, also, to take a moment to point out that despite the fact that I'm sure he has missed this chamber dearly, and all of us, it was not purely nostalgia that brought Mr. Dosanjh back today, along with Raminder. He has brought a guest with him who has distinguished himself on the international stage. He is an individual who has served in the very highest capacities at the United Nations. He is an author of 11 books. He is a humanitarian. He has worked in the cause of refugees and the plight that people around the globe face confronted by poverty and difficult circumstances.

He took a remarkable and some might say foolish step not so long ago in entering elected office in his native country of India, and his service, his abilities, his intellect were immediately recognized with his appointment as Minister of State for External Affairs. He sits as a member of the parliament in the largest democracy in the world.

Many of us in this chamber had the opportunity to hear him speak on Saturday evening at the Canada India Foundation dinner. He provoked us to think — to think big, to think global — and to understand the potential for the bilateral relations that can, should and will arise between our two great nations.

Shashi Tharoor is our guest. He is travelling with his guest, Sunanda Pushkar, and they are travelling with Ashutosh Jha, who is visiting from Toronto. I know all members of the chamber will want to make Dr. Tharoor very, very welcome in the chamber today.

H. Bains: I'd also like to join with the Government House Leader in welcoming Dr. Shashi Tharoor, who I had the opportunity to listen to on Saturday — a speech which I thought was very informative, scintillating and, at the same time, gave us a lesson in what really is going on in India as far as the Indian economy is concerned.

I want him to have a good time here in this House. Hopefully, maybe later on we will learn a thing or two on how we can conduct each other a little better and maybe learn some lessons from you on how you are able to convince your opponents of your ideas and make things better for India and Indian people.

I ask all of you in this House to welcome Mr. Tharoor to this House. Thank you for coming and visiting us here, Mr. Tharoor.

D. Horne: Today in the precinct there are 72 grade 5 students from Bramblewood Elementary School — a wonderful elementary school in my riding — along with their teachers Mark Wong, Susan Jimenez, Ryan Kett and the principal, Brenda Walker. I hope when they come into the chamber and watch question period later that we are all on our regular and wonderful behaviour. I wish that all the members would make them truly welcome.

Tributes

ANNIVERSARY OF
SULLIVAN MINESITE DEATHS

N. Macdonald: Today is a very difficult anniversary for the people of Kimberley. On May 17, 2006, Kim Weitzel, Shawn Currier, Bob Newcombe and Doug Erickson died in a small shed at the Sullivan mine in Kimberley. I know this is a particularly difficult day for families and friends. On behalf of the Legislature, our thoughts and prayers are with them on this day.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Today at lunchtime many of us had the pleasure of joining the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in the Ned deBeck Lounge for a lunch, where we were able to talk about some of the very important work that they do in supporting their grandchildren. They are ably led by Barb Whittington and Carol Ross. Many of them are here with us in the precinct for question period. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. B. Penner: Just a few moments ago I had the pleasure of talking to a school group from my constituency. There's a grade 12 class of students that are eagerly anticipating June, when they get to graduate in just a few
[ Page 5384 ]
weeks from now. In the meantime they've been led by their teacher, Mr. Dan Oostenbrink, along with a number of other adults, and today they're going to watch what we call question period. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce Kathryn Seely, who is the publications manager of the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon Division. With Kathryn is Patti Moore, who is the health promotion coordinator of the Canadian Cancer Society from the Kootenay region. Patti is a constituent. We had an excellent discussion over lunch today about cosmetic pesticides and their use. I would like the House to help me make them feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

grandparents raising grandchildren

D. McRae: If we all lived in a perfect world, grandparents would have endless time to spoil the grandchildren, give them candy, let them stay up late and then send the kids home. But today I want to pay respect to a different role played by grandparents, one that many probably never expected to fill. Many grandparents envision their later years as their time — a time to socialize, play and relax. After all, this stage of life should be their time. But it's not always the case.

Across B.C. there are grandparents who have selflessly stepped forward to become the primary caregivers for their grandchildren. Having strong family and cultural connections are essential when children must leave the home of their parents, and grandparents are often able to fill a void and provide the love, stability and familiarity that children need.

I think all of us in this chamber who have been parents know it's never easy. Whether it's a diaper change, getting a band-aid, helping with high school algebra or just being there to provide guidance or a shoulder to cry on, a parent's job is never done. Can you imagine having to do all these tasks and more after your children have left home?

In the Comox Valley we are fortunate enough to have the child development centre, providing services to parents and grandparents for over 30 years. I was fortunate enough to be invited last January to visit the centre and to meet the grandparent support group that meet there. I was able to hear firsthand the challenges facing the grandparents, the supports they needed, the challenges they faced.

As an MLA, it gives me great satisfaction that I can help advocate for their needs. This government is committed to working with grandparents who are raising children and to exploring future initiatives that support them in their critical role as family members.

I want to thank the grandparents raising grandchildren who have taken the time out of their incredibly busy lives to come and visit the Legislature today and to bring greater awareness to the work they do and advocate for the supports they need to allow them to raise their grandchildren the best way possible. In respect to my grandmothers, I raise a virtual cup of tea to all of you and the work you do. Thank you so much.

forums on solutions and
green jobs for B.c.

C. James: I would like to speak today about developing positive solutions for B.C.'s economic, social and environmental future. The first initiative I want to talk about is Our Province, Our Future. This is a project that brings together British Columbians from all walks of life and every sector of the economy to dialogue about how we build a strong, sustainable economy of tomorrow.

On April 30, I was pleased to host a summit with more than 200 business, labour, First Nations, not-for-profit, environmental, academic, local government and community leaders in Vancouver. I was struck by the energy and the commitment of the people in the room, a commitment to work together to find common ground and build on our strengths to seize the opportunities for tomorrow. And this summit was only the first step. Regional and sectoral forums will be held as well as an on-line discussion. I invite everyone to join the conversation at ourprovinceourfuture.bc.ca.

I also want to speak about a green jobs conference that I attended and spoke to in Washington, D.C. This conference brought together business, government, labour and environmental leaders to talk about how we create tomorrow's green jobs. It was a tremendous opportunity to engage leaders from across North America looking at cutting-edge solutions for sustainable growth. Because every jurisdiction will be looking to create the green jobs of the future, we need to do everything we can to press our B.C. advantage.

We live in an extraordinary province. We all need to work together to find solutions to build a sustainable economy, fight climate change and build a stronger society.

[1345]

nurses in b.c.

R. Cantelon: "How was your day, dear?" That's a common exchange between a man and a wife at the end of a workday. I'm married to a nurse at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and those conversations occur at 7:30 at night on Wednesdays and Thursdays and then at 7:30 in the morning on Saturdays and Sundays after long, arduous 12-hour days. It's a very demanding profession both physically and emotionally, requiring the discipline
[ Page 5385 ]
of a drill sergeant and the sensitivity of a doting grandmother or grandfather.

The nurse is the first person that a patient sees when they wake up in the morning, and they're the first person that a patient sees during a health crisis in the hospital. Very often they're the last person at night when they settle down for the evening, but that's not the end of it. There are usually multiple visits during the evening.

Nurses provide continuing care and attention and comfort to the patients. They are the eyes on the patients, always sensitive and alert to changes in the patient's condition. They share the joy of recovery with the patient and then comfort and console them when there are setbacks. They certainly play an essential role in the recovery of patients in our hospitals.

It's a job filled with personal risk, exposure to disease, and, unfortunately and sadly, very often verbal and physical abuse from patients and visitors to the hospital. There are injuries from the strain and stress of the job and then, of course, the mental stress from the continuing emotional drain from the deep commitment they provide to the patients.

Nursing has become a very diverse and highly skilled occupation. OR, ICU, pediatric, palliative, rehabilitation, medical, post-surgical, public health and long-term care are among the many disciplines that the nurses provide in services. They always work as part of a highly skilled professional team providing excellent care and are the backbone of our health care system.

I invite the members — and I'm sure you'll join me, Mr. Speaker — in endorsing their motto for Nursing Week: "Nursing: you can't live without it."

INTERNATIONAL DAY
AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

M. Elmore: The phrase "How do you do, dear" or "How was your day, dear" could also apply to a woman and a woman after they've come home from work, hon. Speaker.

Today, May 17, marks International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. As such, it's a day of action, awareness and affirmation of the fundamental rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people and their families. Around the world lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans activists, along with community allies and politicians, will stop and acknowledge the high human and societal cost of discrimination, violence and harassment, and will continue in a collective push towards equality, acceptance and freedom.

Homophobia and transphobia is a form of discrimination and includes negative attitudes that can lead to direct or indirect discrimination against gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered people or towards anyone whose physical appearance or behaviour does not fit masculine or feminine stereotypes.

In Canada and here in B.C. it's true that we've made tremendous gains on social and legal rights. Yet lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans members of our communities still face the reality of homophobia and transphobia in their daily lives. Gay- and trans-bashing is still a frequent occurrence.

Social rights, freedom from violence and harassment, and the right to live and work wherever we want with dignity, safety and security have yet to be won for all, but change is possible.

In Vancouver QMUNITY B.C.'s Queer Research Centre is hosting the sixth annual International Day Against Homophobia awareness breakfast. In Abbotsford there will be the third annual Walk Away from Homophobia, organized by the Fraser Valley Youth Society and allies. In Campbell River the Campbell River Pride is holding its fourth annual Walk Away from Homophobia. Columneetza Secondary School in Williams Lake is organizing events.

There's more to be done. We can all be part of keeping this change going. Let's remember that when we stand strong, we stand strong together united against homophobia and transphobia.

VERNON VIPERS
JUNIOR A HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

E. Foster: On Sunday, May 9, the Vernon Vipers defended their title as the top junior A hockey team in Canada, winning the Royal Bank Cup at a tournament held this year in Dauphin, Manitoba. The Vipers had to persevere through several tough series to get to the final tournament. One of the toughest was against the Powell River Kings in a seven-game series to win the provincial championship. The owner told me that was probably one of the best teams they've faced in the country, so a credit to them.

[1350]

This is only the second time a Junior A team has won back-to-back national titles. The first was the Vernon Lakers in 1990 and '91, and including the wins in '96 and '99, Vernon is the only six-time winner of this trophy.

Owner Duncan Wray, head coach Mark Ferner and their staff have done a great job of building the most successful and best-run junior franchise in the country. They have a dedicated group of talented coaches, scouts and training staff who have brought players from all over North America to Vernon and moulded them into a well-disciplined group of young men who are a credit to their homes, communities and families.

The players come from as far away as Boston, Philadelphia and southern California in the United States, and as far east as Herbert, Saskatchewan, in Canada. All areas of B.C. are well represented on the team, from Vancouver in the south, all through the Interior to Fort St. John, where young Braden Pimm — the nephew of proud uncle, the member for Peace River North — calls home.

To all the staff and players of the national champion Vernon Vipers, thank you very much for a great season, and we'll see you next year.
[ Page 5386 ]

MID-ISLAND SUSTAINABILITY
AND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the Mid-Island Sustainability and Stewardship Initiative, otherwise known as MISSI. "Initiative" is the right word. This group brings action to the word "sustainability" and turns the word "democracy" into a verb. They're participants in our community and very concerned people. They are located in the green agricultural lands of Cedar and Yellow Point between Ladysmith and Nanaimo.

MISSI works as a non-profit society within the mid-Island region, fostering sustainable development, rural and community stewardship, as well as protection of essential ecological systems. MISSI's purpose is to promote and implement sustainable community objectives with particular emphasis in their area.

MISSI is focused on responsible development that meets the needs of the community, and the regional district of Nanaimo has been open to MISSI's input as partners in the official community plan process. In fact, the RDN has cited the MISSI sustainability checklist as their guideline for development and part of their meeting of their responsibilities to Bill 27.

MISSI assembles local ideas and perspectives concerning land use, growth and development; ecological systems; habitat requirements; and communities. They formulate consensus and preferences for land use in our communities. They educate local communities on sustainable uses of land, water and air; food security; pollution; and climate change.

People and businesses are moving to Vancouver Island, and we welcome them and the growth that they bring. However, we also recognize the importance of our rural areas and our precious agricultural lands, as well as forests and riparian areas that surround us.

MISSI is striving to contribute to our regional growth strategy and the official community plan reviews. Their vision is global. Their concern is larger challenges, such as global climate change, food security and peak oil. MISSI acts locally and is taking steps to help determine the best practices that could guide sustainable community development in our area. Their initiatives include water testing and their yellow cedar carbon-neutral cooperative. I'd like to thank MISSI for their work in all these areas.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH
REPRESENTATIVE FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

C. James: In a letter today to the Premier, the hon. Ted Hughes said the actions of this government strike a blow to the heart of his recommendations to improve child welfare in British Columbia. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Why did the B.C. Liberals spend time and resources fighting the children's representative in court, when they should be working with the children's representative to protect children in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: The Leader of the Opposition will be aware that this is the result of a dispute from which we received a judgment from the Supreme Court of British Columbia and then today, as she mentions, a very thoughtful letter provided by Mr. Hughes. In that letter, though, he certainly does acknowledge the very real issues that we are seeking to balance, and he also suggests some potential solutions — those that we will carefully consider.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: On the same day that the court ruled that the government's actions were illegal, the minister actually told the media that the case was a waste of time and resources.

[1355]

It doesn't sound to me like the minister or this government is taking this issue seriously or that they're paying attention to what's at stake. Again my question is for the minister. Will she admit today that her government was wrong, apologize to the children's representative and to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, to the Leader of the Opposition, we have received a very thoughtful letter by Mr. Hughes. In that letter he acknowledges the very real issues that we are seeking to balance. He recognizes that there are matters of great seriousness, and he proposes some solutions — those that we will genuinely consider.

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

C. James: I'd like to read a quote. "If public confidence in the child welfare system is to be restored, the independent body that speaks for children and youth must have a status that puts independence beyond question." Those are the words of Justice Griffin. A very thoughtful letter from Judge Hughes, and a very clear judgment from the courts for this government.

This minister has a chance to stand up and do the right thing, to admit that this government was wrong to withhold these documents from the children's representative and to take meaningful action to ensure that the representative can exercise her mandate without restriction.

So again, my question is to the minister. Will the minister take immediate action today, remove all the impediments and ensure that the children's representative can do her job?
[ Page 5387 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, it is extremely important to our ministry that we provide the representative and other independent officers with the documentation necessary to proceed with their work. We have always sought to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: We have attempted to engage in the kind of balancing that Mr. Hughes speaks of in his letter. I read with interest his suggestions, his possible solutions, and we will consider those carefully.

M. Karagianis: "We have to remember that this is all about our kids. Of that, we cannot lose sight." Those were the words from Justice Ted Hughes today.

The children's representative protects the most vulnerable in this province, but this minister has shown that she cares more about throwing roadblocks up in front of the representative than she does about looking after children in this province.

Again to the minister: will the minister simply apologize to the children's representative and the people of B.C. and, frankly, get out of the way and let the representative do her job?

Hon. M. Polak: I think that one of the most important things we can acknowledge in this Legislature is that those who protect the vulnerable children of this province are our front-line social workers each and every day. Those people deserve to know that the ministry is going to work to seek to balance the kind of very real issues that Mr. Hughes acknowledges in his letter, and we certainly are going to take seriously his suggested approach to perhaps resolving some of these matters.

But let's remember that one of the other things that Mr. Hughes has held as primarily important in the protection of children is that we seek to depoliticize this process and instead come to constructive solutions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's just remember a few facts here about what this government has done. In 2003 they shut down the Office for Children and Youth. Then they overhauled the child welfare system while making massive funding cuts. They only reinstated the children's representative after the Hughes report forced their hand to do so.

It's clear from the words and actions of this minister that the government still does not get it. So will the minister stop getting in the way and let the children's representative get on with doing her job of representing the vulnerable children here in the province of British Columbia?

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: Let's remember what this government has done. It has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in increased funding to respond to the recommendations.

We have increased the number of front-line social workers in this province in spite of declines in the number of children who are taken into care. We continue to perform the transformative work that will ensure that more and more children are able to be cared for in their family home and that we're not there always picking up the pieces, but instead are there supporting families from the outset.

M. Elmore: The children's representative is an advocate for youth and families who need help, and she just wants to do her job. The children's representative provides an important and independent accountability measure of government's actions.

The minister's actions have fundamentally undermined the office of the children's representative. When will the minister apologize to British Columbians for her actions and commit to work in good faith with the children's representative from this point forward?

Hon. M. Polak: We take our role in working with the Representative for Children and Youth very, very seriously — in fact, so seriously that we created an interface unit, an entire department within our ministry that seeks to respond to not only her request but those of other independent officers. In the last year alone we've responded to almost 600 requests for information to her office.

By any measure the Representative for Children and Youth receives better and more frequent communication from this ministry than any other independent officer as they relate to government.

A. Dix: I know that ministers in question period will tend to obfuscate, but the minister was just repudiated in the courts and has just asserted, in spite of that repudiation, that she has the best record of cooperation of any ministry and any minister in the government. It's absurd, hon. Speaker. It's absurd.

The minister routinely said that this court case was a waste of money. Well, the judge in the case awarded costs to the representative. The judge in the case decided it was that minister that was wasting money. So will that minister acknowledge that she wasted money that would have been better spent for child protection, and will she apologize to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: As we've acknowledged from the outset, from time to time independent officers need to have access to cabinet materials. We have never questioned that. But this was never about access to documents. The representative…
[ Page 5388 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …always had access to those documents under the same protocol as any other independent officer. We have sought in every occasion to provide the representative with each and every document that she has sought. It is worth noting that in all of her published reports to date, she has not relied upon cabinet documentation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: We passed the legislation question unanimously in the Legislature, and the courts ruled in favour of the representative in spite of the position taken by the minister. Her disdainful responses have damaged that relationship.

It's time, hon. Speaker. We have an Apology Act in British Columbia. It's time that the minister availed herself of that, apologized and helped rebuild the relationship. Will she do that today, or will she continue to defend this silly waste of government resources?

Hon. M. Polak: What I would like to see in this House is that there would be a ceasing of the politicization of issues and matters around this. It's clear. It's clear that unlike….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down for a second.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: Both for the Representative for Children and Youth and for myself as minister, our primary goal is to find the best possible ways we can to serve the vulnerable children of this province. I'm confident that as we go forward, even this dispute is one that we can manage to resolve between us and that we can go ahead and work forward. I am not confident that this opposition will ever stop politicizing the matter of children's welfare in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: The minister wants to talk about depoliticizing. Well, the minister started it by taking the commissioner to court. That was putting politics into the children's commissioner's office.

She talks about wanting to work together. Then she needs to realize something. The children's commissioner…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: …is an independent officer who is above politics. If she wants to rebuild that relationship, she should take the first step and admit her government was wrong and apologize to the children's commissioner. Will she do that?

Hon. M. Polak: Unfortunately, the member ought to get his facts straight before he rises in this House. In fact, on various occasions we proposed solutions to the representative, solutions that would afford her access to the cabinet documents. She was unwilling to participate in any of the discussions toward an agreement that would have seen her receive those documents, and instead it was the representative….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: We proposed, at various points, solutions that the representative could have taken with us in order to have access to all of the documents that she wished. She was not willing to abide by that, and therefore, it was the representative who took government to court. I understand the issues that are very real, which caused the representative to take that action, but we continue to be of the view that there was another way to resolve this.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the judge was very clear. In fact, she was so clear that the minister's government will be sending a cheque to the children's commissioner to cover court costs.

My question to the minister is: along with the cheque that's going to the commissioner, will they at least have the good grace to include a letter of apology?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I want to acknowledge that when it comes to the work of the Representative for Children and Youth and my work as a minister, our ultimate goal is the protection of children who are some of the most vulnerable in the province.

We have received a very thoughtful letter from Mr. Hughes. It is one that certainly, unlike the opposition, looks forward to what kinds of solutions he might be able to propose. We're happy to consider that, and I think we should take the time to consider the very thoughtful words he's written to us.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON CLOTHING COSTS FOR CHILDREN

J. Kwan: Last Friday the government finally coughed up a list of some of the items that will cost taxpayers
[ Page 5389 ]
more money because of the HST. Charging this hated sales tax for adult-sized clothing and shoes for children is blatantly unfair. Can the Minister of Finance tell British Columbians: why is he penalizing families with kids who are just gentle giants?

Hon. C. Hansen: We acknowledge that there are some household items that families will wind up paying a little bit more for as a result of the harmonized sales tax. That is exactly why we have put in place an HST credit. There will be a cheque in the mail for 1.1 million British Columbians.

[1410]

It's also the reason why we have reduced personal income tax — to make sure families have more money in their household budget to cover those things that might cost a little bit more after HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: This is a $1.9 billion tax shift onto the backs of consumers. In 2010 it is not unusual for a ten-year-old or a 12-year-old to wear adult-sized clothing and shoes. In fact, my 14-year-old stepson has been wearing adult-sized clothing and shoes for the last two years. My little girl, who just turned seven, is almost as tall as me in height.

The last I checked, a 14-year-old child who does not fit into children's-sized clothing and shoes is still a 14-year-old kid. Why is this government bringing forward a tax policy that discriminates against children based on their size?

Hon. C. Hansen: If we want to look at tax burden on families, we only have to go back ten years to look at the tax burden that was imposed by that previous NDP government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: In fact, ten years ago British Columbia families were paying some of the highest tax rates anywhere in North America. In fact, every B.C. family today has seen a reduction in their personal income tax by a minimum of 35 percent over that period of time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: In addition, as we know from the leading economists in Canada, this shift to a harmonized sales tax is going to produce jobs. That means more steady income for B.C. families in every single corner of this province.

SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR
LEAKY-CONDO REPAIRS

R. Chouhan: Residents of a building on Acorn Avenue in Burnaby have been struggling to afford the $75,000 they each have to come up with for the leaky-condo repairs to their buildings. Now they need to find an additional $100,000 between them to make up for the cancellation of the PST rebate program when this government's HST kicks in.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. How will this government assist these leaky-condo owners to make the repairs to their units when this repair will not be completed until after the HST kicks in?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite knows that we announced last July that we were going to shut down the program around leaky condos because it actually had been a program that had gone more years than it was intended to. It was done over a longer period of time. It was supposed to be a $250 million program, which was actually around $780 million. It did include a PST issue with regards to that. We announced to everybody that it would be expiring on the 30th of June, and it will.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: When the work began on fixing the building there, there was no way to know that the PST rebate program would end and that the HST would be implemented. They had no idea of that. The whole province was taken by surprise on the HST.

Again to the Minister of Finance: what assistance does the government have for the residents who will now face a $100,000 hike to the repair bill, thanks to this government's HST and the cancellation of the PST rebate program?

Hon. R. Coleman: We had a program that was in place and did thousands of homes over a period of years. We changed, back a number of years ago, the whole building envelope issue in British Columbia. We knew that over a period of time, the buildings would be taken care of. They have.

The reality to the member opposite is that on every individual building, sometimes there are a number of other factors with regards to why they may be having water ingress or egress problems. It could be bad maintenance. It could be that they haven't fixed the roof. It could be any number of issues. This was never intended to be a program….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: You wrote the program. You told us it was a ten-year program when you put it in place,
[ Page 5390 ]
hon. Members. It went over ten years. It's done the job it was supposed to do. The PST piece is being eliminated, just like the Homeowner Protection Office piece was eliminated last year, as we told people at that time.

B. Ralston: As the minister knows, the decision of a strata council to come up with the necessary money to make costly repairs is not an easy one. Sometimes, in many cases, it takes a very long time for those members of that strata council — those tenants, those owners — to be in a position to pay that money.

When the HST was scrambled together either before the election or after the election, can the minister advise the House: was the plight of these people considered by the government at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: This was a program that was put in place over 12 years ago. The program served its purpose. It did over $780 million in reconstruction loans. It had a PST rebate for people that were doing repairs with regards to leaky condos.

Last year we announced that the program would sunset. It is sunsetting; that hasn't changed. Members are well aware that the legislation has also been passed with regards to sunset this program, and we're moving on.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister of Finance. What studies were done on the impact of the HST on leaky-condo owners?

Hon. C. Hansen: The studies show the elimination of the provincial sales tax…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The studies show that the elimination of the provincial sales tax and the adoption of a harmonized tax system in British Columbia, harmonized with the federal goods and services tax, is going to stimulate the economy and make jobs. That ultimately benefits all British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FUNDING FOR
HIGHWAY OF TEARS PROJECT

G. Coons: In 2006 the Highway of Tears report recommended the establishment and funding for a Highway of Tears project coordinator. Last Friday the project's funding ran out. Nearly 20 women have gone missing along this stretch of highway, and this government can't find the time to make it a priority. Can the Attorney General commit today that the funding for the Highway of Tears project will continue?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm certainly sympathetic to the member highlighting the tragedy that has accrued along the Highway 16 corridor. I can't imagine anything more traumatic or more difficult than to confront the fact that a loved one has gone missing or has been killed.

Having said that, I wish the member would at least acknowledge the fact that the government has contributed upwards of $150,000 towards the work that is taking place on a preventative basis, in addition to the efforts of countless investigative officials who are seeking to find what these families ultimately want and deserve — that is, an answer as to what happened to their loved ones.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The Attorney General should know that the Highway of Tears has not disappeared, and neither should the funding. This is the second time that the funding for the Highway of Tears project has been threatened by this government. In 2007 the government had to be shamed and embarrassed into continuing to fund this project.

British Columbians want resolution to this serious issue. Families and communities want closure. Can the Attorney General commit today that the funding for the Highway of Tears project will be there and that the project coordinators will not have to continually beg the government to ensure their work continues?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can assure this member and all members of the House is that the officials involved in this have been meeting with the Carrier-Sekani Family Services, who have been receiving funding and have been undertaking the work. They are in the process of receiving the reports that have been produced by that group and examining the recommendations and the findings.

There has been and will continue to be a steady dialogue, and we will endeavour to do everything we can to provide the assistance and support necessary both to prevent repeats of these tragedies and to provide the families of these missing women with the answers they so desperately need.

M. Mungall: We know that money has been spent. The question is: will it be continued? Will the minister answer and commit today that funding will continue for this very important program?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can appreciate the member's interest on behalf of not just the organizations involved
[ Page 5391 ]
but the families across the province who are connected either directly or indirectly. We have, I think, demonstrated over the past three to four years a genuine commitment to trying to provide both the investigative resources and the support to this organization necessary to take preventative action. We're working with the group. We intend to continue working with the group and doing what we can to ensure that they have the resources necessary to continue with their work.

B. Simpson: The Attorney General has spoken about having a steady dialogue with the families and with the folks involved with the Highway of Tears. What's being asked for is steady funding. He talked about the necessary resources for the Highway of Tears, and the necessary resource that is being asked for is steady funding — not having it run out, not having to continue to come back and plead to have an ongoing investigation on the Highway of Tears.

The question is straightforward. The minister has been asked it in a straightforward manner. Will he commit today to steady funding? Renew the funding now, and commit to a longer term to continue the work on the Highway of Tears.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that this member and all members of the assembly will be interested in at least two important facets of this. The government is doing everything it can to provide the resources necessary on both an investigative and a preventative front. But I know he would also want the government to be taking steps to ensure that the deliverables that are set as part of providing that funding are actually being met and, if they aren't, how those resources can be better allocated to meet those objectives.

I can assure this member that we will continue to work in that vein and that we will continue to work cooperatively with the agencies and the people who have taken such a proactive step to help these families and prevent future tragedies.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition to present with several hundred people signing on from Campbell River and the neighbouring islands asking the government to overthrow the HST.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Education — and, in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 7, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Forests and Range Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010

(continued)

C. Trevena: I'd like to stand and take my place in debate on Bill 7, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act. Representing a forest-based community, every time there is a forestry act tabled, people in the community examine it with interest and hope that it's going to produce the necessary impetus that will help revitalize the communities.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I've got to say that we've just had the week back in the community and seen that a lot of people are back at work in the bush, that people are working, that things are happening. But we are still facing major problems. We have in Campbell River, as I've mentioned many times before…. There is still no sawmill there, and the Catalyst pulp mill's doors are closed and have been for more than 15 months now.

There is really a sense that there is a need to have action — hopefully, action driven by the government — which will help revitalize the industry on the north Island and on the coast.

In the opening remarks the Minister of Forests and Range spoke about the Port Alice specialty cellulose mill. I think one of the interesting things about this bill is how it's looking at biofuel and new uses of fibre. In talking about the Port Alice mill, the minister mentioned that the items produced there are not traditional. You're not producing pulp. It isn't a pulp mill. It is a specialty cellulose mill, and it's been working since actually about 1912. It's going to celebrate its 100th anniversary. So doing new things with fibre isn't actually anything new. It has been going on for a long while.

I know that Port Alice…. It's now up and running. It's employing many people, and we're hoping that it continues to be up and running and employing many people for many years to come, looking at new ways of doing things.

I know that the managers at Port Alice…. I have meetings with them. I'm having a meeting with them in the next month or so to talk about new ways that the mill can expand and new things that can happen there so it's just not producing the specialty cellulose it has been producing for many years but can expand and do different things. I think there is really a lot of opportunity there and a lot of opportunity elsewhere to be doing new things with our fibre.
[ Page 5392 ]

If this bill is actually going to help both Port Alice and other mills that can be looking at fibre in new ways, I think that really is very interesting. It's not just the classic: "We're going to basically cut down trees and produce paper." We're going to use our trees to produce…. Whether it's the fibres in the clothes that we're wearing, whether it is for armaments, for cigarette filters, for a lot of different aspects that people may or may not agree with, there are lots of things we can use our trees for.

I would hope that this bill in its design will really allow the expansion of these sorts of industries and will obviously be very helpful for the mill in Port Alice. As I go back to what I was saying in my opening remarks, the Port Alice mill is a vibrant mill. It's been — apart from when it was shut down a few years ago, and luckily, we were able to get it reopened — working on the north Island for almost a hundred years, unlike other mills in the communities.

There is no large-scale sawmill operating on the north Island, nor is there a traditional pulp and paper mill now that the Catalyst is gone. We are dependent on this mill and the new ways of working, but we're also dependent on new ideas. There are lots of new ideas, which I would hope this bill will also help.

[1430]

I've talked with the Minister of Forests and Range, and constituents have talked with him, and he's been very open to conversation about salvage and about new ways of accessing salvage. One of the things that some people in the communities, including First Nations on the north Island, are looking at is building up pellet plants so that the biofuels can actually be produced by communities on the north Island, using the waste that's in the wood, and making agreements with local salvage operators to ensure that that can happen.

This is also going to be very positive if this bill allows those agreements to go ahead, and I think this is really what is being sought in the north Island. It's looking for new ways of doing things, of making sure that we can develop new opportunities.

Looking at pellets, the First Nations that are looking at doing pellet production have lots of ideas, can see this as a possible very vibrant economic development opportunity for their communities. It will get people employed. It will use the waste wood that is in the bush that is in their traditional territory.

It also will be able to use local salvagers who are maybe not First Nations, give them a place to work and at the same time do what we would all hope that the biofuels do, which is transferring some technology so that we're using biofuels and wood waste as a form of heating, a form of fuel, and reducing greenhouse gases.

One reason it would reduce greenhouse gases is that it's not then shipping the pellets from the Interior over to the coast, which is both costly and has a huge impact on greenhouse gases. If we could get things like this happening, the trickle-down effect is quite amazing. I've talked with various ministers in the past and continue to do so.

Greenhouses in the Campbell River area have been burning coal, which is locally produced at Quinsam Coal. While they are burning coal with many scrubbers and producing as few emissions as possible and have a very low carbon footprint because the coal is just transferred from Quinsam Coal to just north of the Oyster River, they've been advised that they can't heat their greenhouse with coal anymore. They have to make a shift.

They're looking at the cost of doing that. If they had to use the cost of bringing in pellets from the Interior, it would be prohibitive, so they would be looking at possibly using pellets that could be produced in the north Island. You have a far lower impact, carbon footprint, by moving those pellets just down the Island rather than having to bring them from the Interior to people who want to use them there.

There are a lot of opportunities that can be captured and, I would hope, used, if there is the commitment to take some of the ideas from this bill and actually enact them, make them happen in the community and not just let them stand there.

The disappointment that is out there in my community is that we get lots of little bills on forestry and not something comprehensive that's really going to address the bigger picture. As I mentioned, I was travelling around the constituency this last week, using the opportunity to get out and hold community meetings and meetings with individuals right around the community. As I say, people are back at work. Western is employing people. But what needs to be recognized is that changes are happening.

Talk to anybody in the north Island. There is a huge desire for a real sawmill in the north Island — to make that happen, to look at how we can develop that. There are changes happening in the growth of woodlots. I toured a woodlot on Malcolm Island in the week off. A number of the areas on Malcolm Island have now been divided into woodlots, with local ownership and with very interesting ways of working. But again, if there was a mill that could be used that could take the wood from these woodlots as well as other local wood, it would be the opportunity to create a lot more employment than the little dribs and drabs.

As I say, there are changes happening. We have a number of First Nations moving on in their treaty talks. There will be, eventually, agreements and, hopefully sooner rather than later, agreements-in-principle for the 'Namgis, and that will have an impact on TFLs in the area, particularly TFL 37, which is in the Nimpkish Valley. So there will be change there. Whether this bill will allow that change to be enhanced and look at new ways of doing things is something that I think is questionable.

[1435]
[ Page 5393 ]

We really do have to look at the bigger picture of tenure, of who has tenure. I've talked many times in this House about the need and what this side of the House is positioned on and has advocated for, which is the need for tenure reform. While Western is keeping people employed in the bush at the moment in the north Island, it isn't keeping anybody employed in a mill in the north Island and is effectively a monopoly on the north Island and much of the Island in coastal forestry.

One of the problem with the bill is that it takes some of the regulatory burdens away from the forest companies. We've already seen the cut in oversight and compliance within the ministry. It is basically taking some of that oversight for forest practices from the Crown, from the ministry, and putting it into the hands of the private companies.

While one always hopes for the best, when you talk to the people who work in the forest industry, as individuals they are really committed to ensuring that they protect the place that they work, because it's the place that they live. It's the place where they will go fishing. It's the place where they will hunt. It's the place where they will camp with their kids.

People really want to do that, but at the same time, in the bigger picture, when you have the companies looking after the oversight, it's using the old analogy. It's a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse sometimes. I think that we really need to address how we're going to do the oversight, and I would say that the best oversight would be through the trained professionals in the ministry and allowing the enforcement and compliance to continue.

I think that there has to really be a move in recognizing that we have to do things differently in forestry and forest tenure, in how we harvest, in what we harvest and in what we produce. I think that we have to start somewhere.

I would prefer to see a bill that is more encompassing, that will look at the bigger picture, that will look at the needs of the whole province and would look at the communities such as the north Island, which have long served the province well on forestry and should continue to serve the province well on forestry, but really are being very shortchanged. Look at the bigger picture and come with a plan for the forest industry.

We have a number of bills that we are going to be debating over the next few days — this bill, and we've got a number of other bills on forestry. I think it would be really healthy to have an overall plan from the minister.

As I say, there are clearly things in this bill that should be helping the north Island. There are other aspects of the bill which will not help the north Island. I think we need to be much more open to new ideas, new ways of working and looking at ways that we can evolve the industry and that part of the economy into something that will serve us not just for a few years but will serve us for the many, many years that we as legislators are supposed to be investing into the future.

We are talking about trees, and trees are going to be the cycle that long outlive us in this Legislature and many governments. On that, I'll take my place in the debate.

B. Routley: Bill 7 is another bill that amends a whole bunch of different sections of the forests and range statutes. I'm extremely concerned that these vast changes are more tinkering with the forest policy in British Columbia, some of it with unknown consequences as of right now. One of the features of this bill is to change from the common form of valuing timber. That's through scaling timber down at a dry-land sort and assessing its value.

[1440]

Essentially, they scale both the large end, the stump end, of the log as well as the top of the log and come up, through a formula, with exactly how many cubic metres are in each and every log that is brought in. Based on various values and all the rest of it, they're sorted.

What is contemplated, as I understand it in our overview of these changes with ministerial staff, is better utilization of fibre. On its face, that may be a good idea. Certainly, we would agree that moving to better utilization of fibre throughout British Columbia is a worthwhile cause. Nothing upsets forest workers and forest communities more than seeing mountains of wood wasted and timber that's fallen and not utilized.

In fact, in some of my more radical days when I wasn't standing in the Legislature, I recall back in 1989 when I was involved in protests about better utilization of timber and forcing then Fletcher Challenge to…. What used to be allowed was a whole logging truck worth of wood left out on basically a hectare of land. That's minuscule now. Of 40 cubic metres of wood…. That's roughly a loaded logging truck. Imagine that on a hectare of land. That's almost nothing compared to what we see out in the woods today, if you go on almost any claim.

Certainly, I'm hearing the horror stories all over the coast. Up in the north with pine beetle, there are vast areas of wood that are underutilized. From that perspective, it looks like there are some changes that may be a good thing.

On the other hand, just as we saw before with this government, they talked about: "We're going to change things with revitalization." It was one of those words that sounds good. We're going to revitalize the forest policy in British Columbia. But they didn't really revitalize anything. As a result of those changes, we lost tens of thousands of jobs throughout British Columbia, first through the appurtenancy clause changes that disconnected every sawmill from the forest land.

Essentially that allowed companies to shut down mills at will, and they did — in fact, almost 50 percent of manufacturing plants. Certainly, a long list of operations throughout British Columbia have been shut down.
[ Page 5394 ]

You know, I've often wondered if there was a time and place to talk about the number of mills that have closed. This government talks about investment here this morning, but I think it's time, especially when we're dealing with multiple changes to the Forest Act, changes in scaling to allow better utilization. Why would some of those changes be necessary?

Well, one only needs to look at the long list of what's occurred from 2000 to 2009. It's a total of 45 lumber mills and manufacturing plants, 16 engineered and value-added plants, six shake-and-shingle operations, two veneer-peeling operations, one plywood operation and a pole yard. That's just the ones we know of at this particular juncture.

This was put together by the Steelworkers, who would certainly know and be familiar with a lot of the operations that went down. I think it's worthwhile listing them off.

Associated Shake and Shingle, Maple Ridge. All of the employees and workers at these places had families that depended on them. They went to work every day wanting to do a good job. The employers would tell them what an important asset they were as individuals committing to work for that employer and work in that operation. They worked hard, these workers and their families, and a lot of them feel like they were thrown away like yesterday's news.

[1445]

The day comes that the employer just says: "Well, you know what? We're not making enough money." So they shut it down, and mill after mill went down. I started with Associated Shake and Shingle, but Bayside mills in Gibsons, Canfor Panel and Fibre in New Westminster, CIPA Lumber mill in Nanaimo. This is from 2000 to 2009.

The Ditidaht Forest Products at Nitinat Lake. Doman Industries' Nanoose mill in Chemainus. That's one I was very familiar with. I visited all those guys and know that it took $1.3 million in severance to pay those crews off to go home, but a lot of them would have rather worked. A lot of them had worked all their lives at that mill.

The Doman's Silvertree Vancouver operation; Faulkner Wood Products in Surrey; Fraser Pulp Chips in Surrey; Gold Band, Maple Ridge; the Interfor Fraser Reman in Coquitlam; Interfor Fraser Mills, Coquitlam; Interfor Field Sawmill in Courtenay; Interfor McDonald Cedar in Fort Langley; Interfor Queensboro mill in New Westminster; the Interfor Squamish mill; the Maple Leaf Shake and Shingle in Maple Ridge; Meeker Cedar in Mission; North American Shake and Shingle in Mission; Northwest Hardwoods, a Weyerhaeuser operation in Delta; Pacific Coast Cedar in Maple Ridge; Sawarne Lumber in Vancouver; Teal Jones in Boston Bar.

Just think of all these as I'm listing them off. Every one of them has a long list of faces attached, of families depending on those workers to go to work every day and supply jobs. Literally, the total amount of jobs lost — while I take a break from reading the long list — is 21,600 in forestry and logging between 2000 and 2009, and 18,500 jobs lost in wood products manufacturing.

This is industry data by the North American Industry Classification System. The total, I might add, is 40,100 jobs lost in the forest industry from 2000 to 2009. So it is indeed good news, as we heard this morning, to hear of a few mills coming back in, putting an extra shift on here or there. But compared to this list….

I finished at Boston Bar. The Terrace Lumber Company in Terrace. TimberWest's Elk Falls sawmill in Campbell River, and the pulp mill, by the way, has been shut down indefinitely. The TimberWest Youbou mill, the mill that I come out of. I started in that mill back in 1970 and worked with those guys till 1985. I knew those workers and their families, and it was devastating when they lost their mill.

The West Coast Cellulose mill in Vancouver; West Fraser, West Coast Timber in Prince Rupert; West Fraser Terrace mill; the Western Forest Products Island Phoenix mill in Nanaimo; the Western Forest Products New Westminster mill.

The Western Forest Products mill in Tahsis. There's a community that's virtually wiped out. If you've ever been to Tahsis…. You go to Gold River and then you bounce on this logging road all the way to Tahsis. It was a nice little community. Before Doman, it was owned by Pacific. That mill is shut down. It's gone. All those families have been sent packing.

Western Forest Products Vancouver mill; the Western Forest Products Woodfibre mill; Weyerhaeuser K3 Specialty Board in Vancouver; Weyerhaeuser Particle Board in Vancouver; the Weyerhaeuser Canadian White Pine mill in Vancouver. All those plants closed.

In the interior region: Atco Lumber Company in Fruitvale; Bell Pole in Lumby; Canfor in Fort Nelson; Canfor Specialty Mill in Quesnel; Canfor North Central Plywood in Prince George; Canfor Northern Specialties in Prince George; Canfor in Taylor, the mill closed; Canfor in the Upper Fraser; Canadian Woodworks, Prince George; Canpar Industries, Grand Forks; Canwood Furniture, Penticton.

Carrier Lumber in Valemount; Compwood Products in Heffley Creek; Creekside industries, Christina Lake; Gateway Forest Products, Prince George; Interact Wood Products, Prince George; Kamloops Forest Products, Kamloops; Kispiox Forest operation in South Hazelton; Kootenay Veneers, Grand Forks; Louisiana Pacific in Malakwa.

[1450]

Lytton Lumber in Lytton; McBride Forest Products in McBride; North Okanagan Cedar; Pacific Precision Wood Products in Prince George; PG Specialty Wood Products in Prince George; Pope and Talbot in Midway; Riverside Forest Products in Lumby; Skeena Cellulose,
[ Page 5395 ]
Carnaby mill; the Tolko Louis Creek operation; TSW Laminating; Vernon Kiln and Millwork; Weyerhaeuser — actually the planer there, we hear, is shut down — Kamloops; Weyerhaeuser Okanagan Falls; and Weyerhaeuser Vavenby.

Those are the 71 operations that we know of that have closed during the period of time after the government dismantled the appurtenancy system as we knew it. Also, another major component of that was the 20 percent takeback of every forest tenure in the province of British Columbia under the name of revitalization.

There was no connectivity between the loggers who lost their jobs and the work. So the result was that thousands of workers who had their jobs suddenly had to go begging and looking for a job because the timber they were working on was taken back by the government.

There was no program. There was compensation to the industry, but there was no corresponding plan to look after the workers and their families. Oh yeah, there have been band-aid programs by the federal government, and the government here has done what I would call token efforts in terms of doing the real job that could have been done.

We've got a forest industry in chaos. We've got absolute chaos when you look around. The forest health issues are alarming, millions of hectares of land with forest health issues, and this act is just tinkering. It's really just fiddling while Rome is burning here. It's a disaster. We've got so many problems.

One of them that we ought to be paying attention to is our forest health. Here's a government that says they care about carbon. Actually, with all of the dead and dying forests, we're developing…. Instead of a carbon sink, we're potentially creating a situation where there's going to be more carbon created in all this dead and decaying wood — you know, tonnes of carbon being released. So I am alarmed at what I'm seeing with some of these amendments.

I'm hopeful, at the same time, that some of these things may have opportunities for new industries, because there are sections in here, as it was explained to me, that they would be going from scaling to timber cruising.

Just for the 12 people at home that might be listening to this in all of British Columbia, maybe in Canada, I think it's important to note the difference between paying based on scaling and on timber cruising. In the past there was all kinds of timber cruising that went on, and I talked to old-time timber cruisers who went out. They would ribbon off an area, they would scale, and they would make sure that they were looking at a hectare of land. They would use instruments to ensure that that was the case, that they were getting a hectare of land. They would calculate the volume.

The scalers often told me that if a timber cruiser said there were 800 cubic metres of wood in a hectare and, down at the dry-land sort, when they actually scaled it, the real number came in at 700 instead of 800, invariably, those old-time timber cruisers were fairly close. But they would be right. If they were wrong by 100 cubic metres, they would be wrong, essentially, all the time. In other words, there is some truth to what they tried to….

They obviously tried to do their job, but they were extrapolating those numbers over large areas, because they would do a couple of hectares and then say that this is what the amount of timber is in each one of these hectares. Of course, timber varies by age class. It varies by the quality of the timber. Certainly, from valley bottom to the top of a mountain, there are vast changes in the value and quality of the timber that is all impacted.

[1455]

You know, I look at this act, and I just want to turn your attention to the scaling, turning from scaling to determine the volume or quality of timber and classify the quality of timber instead of scaling. Obviously, in a later process, we're going to have the opportunity to ask questions about what this means for scalers.

Are we going to lose hundreds of scalers' jobs as a result of this? Is there any consideration of that potential outcome? If there are jobs lost as a result of that, does the minister or this government have any plan to deal with those workers that could potentially be impacted by this? Or are they going to be offered the opportunity to learn how to do timber cruising instead of timber scaling?

If this side of the House were looking at this, and if I were there, I would be arguing very strongly that our job ought to be where you make changes as best as you can to mitigate those changes by taking care of people and jobs. That's one of the problems that I see with this government. There's a great concern about industry, and that's good. Yeah, we understand that industry creates jobs, but I'll tell you that without every one of those workers in the plant, right down to the guy in the cleanup….

I've often said how stupid it is, the whole system based on industry saying: "Well, we're going to value…." Each plant has to produce certain values. If you had to value the cleanup man, how do you value the cleanup man? But if he doesn't do his job and things pile up and conveyors come off, pretty soon you've got that mill plugged to the nines, and you're going to have no production coming out the other end.

So you can have an $800-a-minute sawyer, but it ain't going to be doing you any good if you don't have the cleanup man doing his job all the way down to the shop floor.

When I see this act and all these amendments, we're going to have the minister taking charge of just about anything. I'm glad he's having a relaxing day today because I think he's going to need to prepare. I think he's going to need to rest up a lot because the minister is going to be doing just about everything, according to this.
[ Page 5396 ]
Just about every page has got changes where we're going to take from the regional manager or the district manager or even the chief forester….

Apparently, our top political forest cop…. He's got all the credentials. We don't need any of those people. We don't need a chief forester anymore. We can do away with the regional manager. Why, we can even do away with just about everybody from soup to nuts because we've got the Minister of Forests, and he's going to be in charge of things and looking out for everybody and the good people of B.C. That's what they would have us believe.

Let's just look at some of the things that he's going to be doing. In the Forest Act, section 94: "to provide that the minister, instead of the regional manager, the district manager…may grant exemptions." So he's going to be granting exemptions. Well, I guess he's got nothing better to do this afternoon. He can go in his office and grant exemptions. My goodness. We're going to have the Minister of Forests granting exemptions. That's a lot more hands-on than I think the Minister of Forests….

We ought to have people out in the field doing those jobs, instead of laying off hundreds of people. This government has been on the rampage, attacking job after job, hundreds of people in the Ministry of Forests, in compliance and in enforcement. They have hollowed out the Ministry of Forests. I'm concerned. I have to wonder if this is going to be the last Minister of Forests and Range. I'm really concerned that they're heading to some kind of natural resources ministry. Is that going to be the next announcement?

Just before the 100th anniversary of the Ministry of Forests in a couple more years, this government, tossing aside all of these experts from our forests, is headed to hollowing out the Ministry of Forests to the point where we're just going to have the Minister of Forests sitting behind his desk running things.

[1500]

It's a frightening prospect, absolutely frightening and terrifying, that we would think that we're going to have everything from…. Listen to this. By repealing this section, the minister "may exempt timber or a person from subsection (1) or (4). (6) The minister may attach conditions to an exemption under subsection (5) and may attach, remove or alter a condition at any time." This is what the minister has the ability to do.

It is unbelievable, the list of things here. It says the person, if they're authorized by the minister…. This is the politicization of forest policy in British Columbia. That is my concern.

We're going to have the opportunity to ask questions. I'm sure the minister will be forthcoming, and we look forward to the answers on some of these things. But it is extremely concerning when you read this long list of things. A waste assessment of timber that's been approved by the minister. What? Now we've got the minister running around doing waste assessment — approved by the minister.

I guess with the right hand he's doing this, and with the left hand…. It says: "the person scales the special forest product at a scale site designated by the minister…." My goodness, he's busy. He's going to be having to run around, and he'll have to have a special big vehicle here, a big black limousine, to pull him up and roar him right…. It'll have to be four-wheel drive, because he'll be racing around all over the forest looking.

"The minister may attach conditions to an authorization granted under subsection (3)…." He may attach or alter a condition at any time. And all these are amended by striking out regional manager, district manager, forest officer. My goodness. At the end of the day there's hardly anything left for anybody else to do anything but the minister.

It really does have to make you look back at what's happened in the province of British Columbia. You know, you see this vast array of measures all being taken over by the minister. Then you look back and say: "Well, we've lost 40,100 jobs since 2000, and we look at the compliance and enforcement office. They've lost something like 250 jobs, or they've put the broad axe to 204 positions, and we hear there's some more coming."

The compliance and enforcement. Do I have this right? There were 199 people left in the entire province of British Columbia. I think that's right — 199 people left in compliance and enforcement, left to run around with their roller-skates on and check out compliance and enforcement.

This is the same government, by the way, that back in the days of heartland, when they put out their heartlands economic strategy…. Do you remember that? The new era of sustainable forestry — sustainable forestry. It was just before we shut down half the mills in the province. If you're losing track, if you need a little help with this, that was just before you shut down half the mills in the province.

We had this heartlands economic strategy and a whole new era. We were going to have revitalization, and we were going to have million-dollar fines. Million-dollar fines, the government talked about. "Boy, we're going to be tough. It's like being tough on crime. Million-dollar fines, and we're going to have thousands of enforcement and compliance. The amount that we're going to go after people…. It'll be severe, maybe even as much as a million dollars," they talked about.

You know what the reality is? The amount of fines, when we investigated this last year…. I asked for the numbers. Shock and awe or surprise of all surprises. Do you think there was a million-dollar fine, hon. Speaker? Not one. Do you think there was a half-million-dollar fine? No. If you think there was a $100,000 fine, you'd be wrong.

[1505]
[ Page 5397 ]

The best they could come up with is that they had a fine for something really outrageous, and I don't know what that would be. I don't know whether you had to have a bridge wash out or a culvert blow out and drive your logging truck through it, but if you got caught with something really, really bad, there was a fine of $19,500. That was the new fine, and they've fallen off. The money collected in fines is almost insignificant.

It's really that the foxes are in charge of the chicken coop in every way, shape and form. We've got what I would call the corporatization of forest policy in British Columbia. I worry that some corporate leader is sitting around drafting forest policy and shipping it over here and saying, "Why don't we try this, this week or this month?" because there doesn't seem to be a coherent plan to take care of the province's forests for the future.

When you look at what's happening, again, with the tree planting…. I know it's all tied together because as part of this act, there are changes that are going to allow changes for compliance and for enforcement as well as for how tenure works in its entirety. There's going to be a whole new level of tenure set up. Again, as they say, the devil is in the details.

You would hope that some of this is well-intentioned. I have to believe in my heart of hearts that nobody on the other side is going to be sitting around trying purposely to absolutely mess this up, I don't think. They just seem to be bouncing. It's kind of like going to the fair and getting on one of those cars, and you bounce from one thing to another. Let's bounce over here and bounce over there. We try something new, and it doesn't work out, so let's try something else. Well, the concern with that is that there needs to be an ongoing plan that at the end of the day results in good jobs for people in British Columbia.

I want to mention that I had the opportunity, in comparison, to compare ourselves, British Columbia. Back in 1989, I had the opportunity to go to Sweden, and they had the ability to cut 100 million cubic metres. At our highest point in the province of British Columbia I think we cut 91 million cubic metres. I think that's the largest annual cut that ever occurred in the province.

We've dropped significantly since then in terms of the annual volume, but in Sweden they were planting 500 million trees. Even in this last couple of years they're planting roughly double the amount of trees that we're planting here in British Columbia. There's something very wrong here that we're not keeping up, that we're not taking care of the forest health issues here, as they are in other parts of the world like Scandinavia, where they really do pride themselves on their forests and future forests, and they're taking care of the planting.

Again, it's not me thinking these things. I look at the website of the silviculture contractors, and they're alarmed. They're ringing the alarm bells. That's not easy for an organization to do, because that group is essentially waiting with their tin cup for money from the province to come out to allow them to do planting. Whatever work they get essentially comes from government. When they're talking about these things, we need to take them seriously.

I know my time is up. I want to thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this important matter.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the second reading debate on Bill 7, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. I agree with my colleague from the Cowichan Valley that this bill is more of the deregulation agenda that this government has brought in not only to forestry but to the whole of government, particularly to forestry, since they were first elected back in 2001.

[1510]

You know, it's about removing regulatory requirements for forest management, including scaling changes, redetermining stumpage rates and extending timeline management agreements. All of these kinds of things that are contained in Bill 7, including the increased new powers of the minister that my colleague referred to, are more of the same medicine that we've experienced from this government and, unfortunately, that forest workers and the communities they live in have experienced from this government over the years.

It's hard to figure out. I'm sure the Minister of Forests is a very intelligent human being and his colleagues are intelligent. [Applause.] Let's hear it for the minister.

But you've got to wonder about the ability to learn. You know what the ability to learn is, Madam Speaker? It's like when you're doing something that isn't working, you try something different. That's intelligence. That's the ability to learn. But this government is on the same…. In fact, they're recycling the old ideas that they started with in 2001 with a fervour that I haven't seen in a number of years.

It shows quite clearly a government that's run out of ideas, that's run out of energy and that's going back to the future. It's not a good thing at all for the industry, and it's not good for British Columbians.

But they have support. Indeed, they have support for the deregulation and privatization agenda that they've embarked on these many years in the forest industry.

For example, Rick Jeffery from the Coast Forest Products Association says that "environmental compliance has shifted from government regulation to customer demand." Now, isn't that sweet? You don't need any regulations in government. All you've got to do is depend upon the customer. The customer is responsible for ensuring that the health of our forests is cared for, that our forest workers are looked after. All of this is dependent on the customer because the government doesn't have any responsibility.

The government can be out of the picture. That's the way they want it, and that's the way they continue to go.
[ Page 5398 ]
So he goes on to say — Mr. Jeffery: "We have to be green. People won't buy if we're not green."

So that's how it works in today's forestry in British Columbia. You're depending on the consumer to say, "Hey, I'm not going to buy your 2-by-4s unless those are green 2-by-4s" — not green in the sense of freshly cut but green in the sense of being kind to the environment. But that's not how it works oftentimes. Usually I would expect, probably a large measure of the times when a consumer goes to Revy or RONA or wherever they go in their community to buy 2-by-4s, that they have a need for that 2-by-4.

That's what's on their mind. They're going to build a house. They're going to build a chicken coop. They may need some fence posts and some rails. I bought some recently myself — you know, supporting the Interior economy up in the Cariboo. That's what they're depending upon. Thinking that somehow the consumer drives all of the requirements that we have for forestry is a pretty outmoded kind of thinking.

It's irresponsible. It is. It's a lack of leadership. I think the government simply has to do better. I know they're struggling these days. I know they're having a hard time on a number of fronts, but still, they're going to be governing this province for at least the next three years — probably only for the next three years. So it's incumbent upon them to bring in new ideas that will revitalize the forest industry.

As the Premier is always saying — and, I'm sure, the minister agrees — it needs to be done. But clearly, it's not being done. The people of British Columbia are looking for that kind of leadership. What we've seen…. This is building upon the cuts to the Forest Practices Code. The government brought in the so-called results-based code. My colleague used the phrase, I guess: "The fox guarding the henhouse."

[1515]

That's basically what that results-based code amounts to. It's like: "You go out there, forest companies. Make sure you're doing a good job. Make sure you're protecting the land base. Make sure you're protecting the environment. Let us know how you're doing, and we'll give a check mark beside your name. Then you can carry on."

The agenda. Like I say, it's back to the future with this government. They came in saying, "We're going to get rid of one-third of all the regulations, the red tape, in this province" — you know, those nasty environmental regulations, those streamside protection regulations that were there to protect the streams out in the forests, the setbacks from streamsides that they thought were a little too lacking in flexibility.

That's another buzzword we hear from the other side a lot: "We want flexibility." You know what? "Those streamside regulations requiring a 30-metre setback or more were just a little bit too onerous, and companies need more flexibility." This government has been only too happy, too pleased, to comply with the forest companies that have been demanding that and the developers that are, in my communities, demanding that.

What we're seeing here is that same deregulation agenda, and it's nonsense. We're seeing how it doesn't work not only in this industry. We're seeing it today in the oil industry with that horrendous spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

We look at how corporations work. What is the primary purpose of a corporation: to make money. Fair enough, and so it should be their purpose, but that doesn't mean you just leave them alone, let them go home with their barrels of cash. You've got to be responsible.

It's shown that oftentimes, if you don't have the regulations…. Just look at how BP and other corporations work in other parts of the world. Look at Nigeria. Look at Ecuador. Oil spills all over the place. They don't have any regulations saying that you have to clean them up. They have a little better regulation in the States, and apparently, we do have better regulations here with regard to oil spills. But you can't just leave it up to the corporations. You can't leave it up to the forest companies.

Their job is to make money. Let them do their job, but our job as regulators, as governors, is to govern, to set some of those regulations that I know are a very bad word to members opposite. It's how we need to work together. You can't just let corporations go on unimpeded.

We've heard in the past — and we still hear them today — the promises that this government made back what they were elected first. You know: "We're going to have a leading-edge forest industry." But what they sadly and unfortunately forgot to tell British Columbians, particularly forest workers and their communities, is that it was going to be leading in job losses — tens of thousands. It was going to be leading in the shutdown of mills across this province. My colleague has read out a litany of such operations that have shut down, including one in my community of Maple Ridge. That's what "leading edge" has become.

In 2003 the government said: "We're reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province's number one industry." What is that? What reshaping have they done? What it appears to be is a cozy relationship with the heads of forest companies, whereby they say: "Whatever you want, come and ask us, and we'll give." In return, the B.C. Liberals get some pretty nice donations from the forest industry.

That may work for them politically, in some respects, but it's not working for the people in British Columbia. They're pretty concerned, as they should be, as we all should be, about the forest industry.

Bill 7 is not the medicine that's needed. It does some tinkering around the edges. There may be some things about it — if we're recovering wood waste, but then for what purpose and how that's going to be done…. I'll say
[ Page 5399 ]
a little bit more about that later. There are a couple of things around wildfire regulations that I like, and I'll talk about that. But by and large, it doesn't measure up to the need that's out there, the desperate need that's out there in the province. It simply doesn't measure up.

[1520]

What we've seen as a response is that last September the government cut $60 million from the forestry budget, and $198 million over three years is cut. I guess it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way, that the forest industry is allowed to decline into chaos. Then, well, guess what. You don't have that much of a forest industry left, so why should you actually spend any money on it?

Besides, a lot of it is wasted on those civil servants, those public servants who…. As my colleague pointed out, the minister can do the job, so he figures that by this legislation, he can do the job of all those folks that have made a career out of managing the forests. He can do it, and this legislation is going to help him do that. So 29 Forests offices have been closed since 2003, and it's ongoing. We've heard about more closures from my colleagues on this side of the House this spring.

"Politicizing" is a word we heard, actually, from the Minister of Children and Families earlier today. She said that we don't want to be politicizing issues in the province. But that is, in fact, what the government is doing with this bill. I mean, it's being taken out of the hands of the professionals and put in the hands of a politician. If that's not politicizing, I'm not sure what is.

The capacity to deal with all the important forest health issues, the management of the forest industry in terms of the harvesting and how that's done, is being reduced in the ministry considerably. The minister said this spring, regarding those cuts, that a lot of that work is duplication, as professional foresters have a responsibility to ensure that the documents they sign are in full compliance.

Well, in fact, that isn't their first responsibility. That should be our responsibility. Their first responsibility is to their employer and to help their employer make a profit.

So the minister is saying — and this is the self-reporting agenda, the results-based agenda…. It's like we don't need independent people, civil servants, those not very helpful civil servants in the first place because, hey, these guys have got foresters. The forest companies have foresters in their employ, so we'll just depend on them. They can do it. When we actually have a civil servant that's looking over the shoulder, that's not very helpful. That's duplication, the minister says, so we'll just get rid of those civil servants and let the forest companies carry on apace — not good management, not at all.

Compliance and enforcement was cut by 35 percent this year over last year — not surprising and not out of keeping with…. It kind of reminds me of the doctrine that right-wing governments — and this is a right-wing government — have used for a while. If there's a crisis, that's the time to move in. It's the time to make a cut; it's the time to make the sea changes. This is what it seems to me the government is trying to do.

Yes, there has been a desperate recession that we aren't through yet by any stretch of the imagination. So now is the time to whack the public service a little harder, and what we've found with this government is that those cuts don't come back either. We've found that over year after year.

As I mentioned, this bill is taking key decisions out of the hands of public servants and putting them in the hands of the minister. We've seen that in a number of areas with this government, especially this spring, taking away the power of supposedly independent bodies like the B.C. Transmission Corporation and the utilities corporation.

[1525]

We're looking at essentially more privatization of the forests. That's what this leads to. The government has been only too happy to assist that process, turning forest companies into land developers in places that local communities didn't even want this to happen, like on the southern end of Vancouver Island. They've been brushed aside for the desire to rescue the forest companies.

But here's the difference. It's rescue the forest companies and abandon the forest workers. That's the problem with the agenda. It may work okay for Mr. Jeffery and his associates, but it's not working for the average British Columbian who depends on the forest industry for their livelihood.

Bill 7 talks about better use of low-quality timber through scaling provisions and changes for bioenergy and improving wildfire protection. The minister himself will decide whether the scaling is done right or not, whether it needs to be rechecked. Normally, prior to this bill, it would be required if the volumes of wood differed between original and the check scales by more than a certain percentage. We'd redo it. All that kind of red tape will be gone, and the minister will just go: "Oh, let me see now. I'll look at my Ouija board, and I'll decide here what needs to be done."

It's very unprofessional. It's an abandonment, I believe, of the management of the forests. Why give the minister all this power? Why does the government want the minister to have all this power? Is it to hand out more goodies to friends and insiders, or is it to cut back on the hated — let's not say hated; I'll say not particularly embraced — civil service? Or is it both?

The minister gets to be able to give to those that he finds most deserving. Those kind of bothersome, sometimes, civil servants, because they do have some professional standards, of course, that they have to adhere to…. I'm sure they upset the minister and his help by saying that things are not all done the way they should be from time to time. Those that are left, that is, are saying that.
[ Page 5400 ]

The province doesn't have a good grasp of the timber supply and the annual allowable cut. It's those kinds of basic issues that we need to have in place before this kind of tinkering, really…. It's the time to do it. It's the time to do it when you have the basics in place. Then move forward. But we're kind of going backwards, it seems to me, with some of the thrust of this legislation and the tens of thousands of job losses I have mentioned and no real changes to assist affected forestry workers or to make any real changes to the way we do forestry in B.C.

Now, one thing that the government — the Finance Minister and others — have talked about…. The HST, though, is going to be a boon to forest companies, apparently to the tune of $140 million in tax relief.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

What's going to happen with that $140 million? Is that money really going to be reinvested in British Columbia? We always hear that British Columbians and British Columbia lag in productivity, but productivity is determined in large measure by business investment. That, I don't think, is what we're seeing. In fact, that's what the figures show — that we're not seeing solid business reinvestment in our province.

We've seen Canfor invest in new mills down in the States, but we're not seeing that here. Americans, now that they have a new president who is looking, I think, a lot more than the previous one at the particular needs of their country…. They've got an America-first policy.

We don't have anything representing a B.C.-first policy. It seems like our first job is to make sure that corporations are doing as well as they possibly can, and the rest of the people have to just find their way, stumble along, try to make a living, not with a lot of help or understanding or direction by this government.

So the forest industry is being abandoned. Forest health is threatened by pests and wildfire. We know a lot about the beetle outbreak, but it's not just the pine beetle. Fir trees are being attacked — spruce, even willows, aspen.

[1530]

They're all having new attacks that are largely — as is understood, anyway — climate change–related. This is not going away. Climate change is not going away.

Wildfires. Despite the fact that the ministry has a much smaller budget…. I think it's $53 million this year for fighting wildfires, and it was something like $400-plus million last year. The Minister of Environment is saying very openly, and I think the Minister of Forests has acknowledged in recent comments, that we're looking at another dry, hot summer most likely in British Columbia.

It's already really dry in the Cariboo. It's dry in the minister's hometown. I mean, there are already forest fires in Prince George. So we're looking at more problems with our forests in terms of the wildfires and in terms of the beetle outbreaks, but we're not seeing a response that's going to be adequate to deal with the disaster that's really looming out there. It's not only looming; it's underway in the forest industry and in the forests right now.

There's actually an opportunity to address forest health, to conserve biodiversity and to use our forests to fight climate change, and that's being lost, I think. Instead…. I want to talk a bit about bioenergy, because Bill 7 talks about allowable annual cut partitions for the purpose of bioenergy and so on.

What I would like to see is a fulsome discussion about bioenergy, because from what I've read about bioenergy, it seems to me that it's not clear at all as to the efficacy or the desirability of proceeding with bioenergy. Is bioenergy a net benefit in the fight against climate change? I think that's one of the discussions that we should be having.

We know about the beetle-kill wood. If you go into the Interior, you'll see it everywhere that there are pine trees, and that's a lot of the interior of our province. But you can't compare fossil fuels. You see, that's the idea of bioenergy, the usual purpose. It's supposed to make us more green, to get away from using fossil fuels and to get into using other sources of energy — in this case, wood. There are other forms of bioenergy, of course, but in this case we're looking at wood.

You can't compare, though, burning wood for bioenergy with fossil fuels without a full-cost accounting of both sources. In the case of bioenergy, you have to account for the carbon used in obtaining the wood, from disturbing the soil and from burning the wood, so it's a several-part process. It's not just burning the wood where carbon is released, and wood has a quarter to a third the energy intensity of fossil fuels.

We know that fossil fuels are fossils. Coal is very heavily compacted over the millennia, and it's very dense in terms of an energy source, and the same thing with liquid fossil fuels. Therefore, there's more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced that comes from burning wood as comes from burning fossil fuels.

All of this that I'm talking about is not to say necessarily that fossil fuels are better. I'm just saying that we need to have a discussion, and we fully need to understand where we're going with bioenergy and what we're likely to get out of it or not.

The energy costs to retrieve wood are high, and that's why the kinds of bioenergy uses that we have now are usually at the point where the wood is being used for something else, like chips that have been a by-product of a mill may be burned. But when you take in all the costs of having to cut the wood in the forest and transport it, there's a lot of energy released there.

[1535]

Bioenergy is not carbon-neutral. I think sometimes folks might think that it is. It in fact takes several decades to cover the emissions from the use of wood. Wood is bioenergy, I want to clarify.
[ Page 5401 ]

The carbon losses in the use of bioenergy, the carbon emissions, are not just in the burning. Clearcutting decreases carbon stocks by about a hundred tonnes per hectare. So what you have is that below ground…. People don't realize, I don't think, that there's a lot of carbon stored in the soil, and a lot of that…. It's all decaying, virtually. That's the process of respiration, and that exceeds the photosynthesis that's occurring, which is severely reduced, of course, if you remove the trees.

Even with replanting of trees, it takes eight to ten years to achieve carbon neutrality at that particular site — there in the forest. There's a lot of complexity to the issue of using wood for bioenergy.

You know, in those beetle-killed forests, as traumatic as they are…. The pine is the one species, often the dominant tree species in the forest, but those forests are not dead when the tree dies, when the pine dies. You often have or nearly always have some other species. If not another tree like aspen or fir, you will have shrubs. You'll have juniper and various kinds of willow and birch and others that are growing there. The thing about it, too, to remember is the soil is still intact, so all that carbon is being held there in the soil.

The last thing I want to talk a little bit about is the wildfire issue. This bill will allow forest companies, apparently, to recover more costs associated with fighting wildfires, and I look forward to hearing from the minister more about what that's about. I don't want to see just more money flowing from the government to forest companies, but it may be, in fact, a good thing.

I know a couple of things that I saw, I did like with regard to the wildfire. Section 21 is a prohibition against starting a fire on grasslands, not just risking starting a fire. I think that's good — to make those that are responsible, if you can possibly catch them…. There are lots of signs out there in the province to report arsonists, and that's a good thing. So anyone that's found to have started a fire on grasslands — and I guess that will apply also to the forest base — will be held accountable, as I understand.

The other thing. If an individual got paid for fire control costs but was found to have been responsible for the fire, they have to pay it back. You know, there's lots of anecdotal evidence, at least, of folks going out to start forest fires so that they can get a job. That's kind of sad that someone would have to do that or think they have to do that. Nobody has to do that, and no one should do that.

If they, in fact, do that, and they certainly then are actually found to have been the cause of the fire, it's only right that they should be required to pay that back. This bill will do that. That's a good thing.

Overall, I would say that it's the wrong direction for the government. We're not looking at the big picture here. We're dealing, it seems to me, with more centralization in the minister's office, more deregulation, putting the forest base at greater risk, instead of bringing in some greater innovation that would help us to revitalize the forest industry in a true way and to deal with the reality of climate change. Again, that speaks to things like bioenergy from wood.

We have to have, in my opinion — and I'd sure like to see — a wider discussion about that. With that, I will take my seat and allow my colleague to have his say.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to take a few moments of time to rise to speak to Bill 7, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. This is an interesting act. It actually does a number of things — some housecleaning, increases some opportunities.

[1540]

I find it interesting listening to the opposition. They go on and on about more power coming into the ministry. By simply changing the text of…. For example, in section 10, it says: "'…a regional manager, district manager or forest officer' and substituting 'the minister.'" That's simply a way of cleaning it up to say that the ministry does the actual application or what have you, whatever it may be.

Those positions, over time, may change — what their name is, how they…. Then you'd have to come back into the House and change it if you were to specifically label a position. Simply by saying it's a part of the ministry does not mean the minister is making those decisions. It means the ministry is making those decisions.

However, that's okay. I understand them going on about these sorts of things. But the member for Cowichan Valley went on and created — you know, announced — a long list of mill closures and stuff. I know the member for Cowichan Valley is new here. He was just elected last year. I wonder if the member for Cariboo North, actually, might be taking him under his wing, because the member for Cariboo North is famous for saying that the sky is falling, and apparently, now the member for Cowichan Valley is saying the exact same thing. It's quite interesting.

But the interesting side out of all of that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: I see I've hit a bit of a raw nerve about saying the sky is falling.

The interesting thing is that there has been a significant change in this province over the last year. A lot of optimism has come in. The member for Cowichan Valley had a debate with me this morning about this, and you know what? He stood up and agreed. He said: "Yes, there are some positive signs happening in the forest industry." Yet to hear the speech today…. The listeners out there should actually go and compare this morning's speech to this afternoon's speech, because clearly, he was saying two totally different things.
[ Page 5402 ]

I just want to give another list here: Babine Forest Products; Decker Lake Forest Products; Conifex in Fort St. James; Conifex in Mackenzie; Silver Dew Hardwoods in Clearwater; the Tolko mill in Kelowna; Western, in Sumas and Port Alberni; Canfor, adding second shifts; Interfor in Castlegar; Springer Creek Forest Products in Slocan; Canfor in Quesnel; and, of course, Harmac. Many of the mills in my riding have gone from work-share to double shifts.

All of those mills that I just mentioned share one thing in common. They've reopened. It's amazing. They've reopened. Matter of fact, what is great about this is not only have they reopened, but companies are investing. They're expanding their productivity line and adding shifts. And $45 million is being spent on the Canfor operation in Fort St. John. Another $20 million is being spent in Chetwynd, and $5 million, $10 million just recently in Fort St. James at the Conifex mill. That's on top of the additional $30 million being spent.

Pinnacle Pellet just spent $30 million building a new pellet plant south of Prince George. They're looking at spending that much or more on a new pellet plant in Burns Lake. There's another pellet plant that was just built in Vanderhoof.

It's pretty clear that what is being described on the other side as the sky falling, quite frankly, has changed dramatically. We're seeing the forest industry starting to be revived, and it's interesting to see.

The member for Cowichan Valley also talked about the unemployment rate, the unemployment from this. It might be interesting to note that at no time in this downturn has the unemployment rate actually risen above the lowest unemployment level that there was in the entire 1990s. The entire 1990s had a higher unemployment level than the worst level during the recession. I find that very interesting, and it speaks volumes to what is happening in this province and the reality, as opposed to the sky is falling and what these members are trying to paint. I find it very interesting.

The member for Cowichan Valley talked and said that the forest industry is in chaos, and he was just livid. I was reminded by the member next door to me that he actually enjoyed listening to him, because when he gets going, his volume goes up. Of course, he's a little hard of hearing, so it makes it a lot easier for him to hear what's being said in the House.

Having said that, like I say, go back and compare what he said this morning about optimism changing in the forest industry, about opportunities. Compare it to that speech. Clearly, somebody just gave him a speech and he came up here and parroted it, because he obviously didn't compare it to his notes this morning.

I want to talk particularly about one section. Bill 7 talks about the scaling of special forest products. Members went on ad nauseam about the idea that it's going to dramatically change and take away the scaling.

[1545]

This is about special forest products. This is about designing the opportunity to take waste wood on a landing, to be able to utilize that waste wood, to be able to either assess it there or bring it to another area to be assessed, to be able to utilize it for special forest products such as, perhaps, chip for pulps or perhaps going in for biofuels or perhaps going in for pellets.

It's amazing, when you actually stop and read the act as opposed to just going off on a rant and trying to spend time in the afternoon. The member just before me from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows went on at length. He spent half an hour in here, and he spent five minutes in total actually talking about the bill. If that's what the members want to do in terms of the debate time that's in this House…. We have lots of important things to talk about, and I can tell you that the forest industry is very important to talk about. But perhaps a little bit of focusing on what's actually before them, as opposed to just going on and railing.

The members opposite also talk about forest health and the challenges that we have with pine beetle. All the members opposite have to do is look in the mirror to understand what's happened with pine beetle and why we got to where we got to. It was in the 1990s that decisions were made that created some of the challenges, but having said that, we need to move forward. That was a decade ago. We need to move forward, and we need to create the right environment to be able to utilize that fibre today.

Talk about tree planting. As the parliamentary secretary for silviculture, of course I'm quite concerned about what we need to be doing in the province. That's what I'm being focused on and doing work on. When you're talking about tree planting, the number of trees in this province being planted has declined. Madam Speaker, when you used to log 80 million cubic metres and now you're logging under 50 million cubic metres, guess what. You're going to plant fewer trees. It's simple math. I understand that the opposition doesn't understand math, but that's just the way she is.

The other thing I find absolutely amazing….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Would all members give the member who is speaking the opportunity to continue speaking. There will be opportunities for every member to participate in this debate in their own time.

Please continue, Member.

J. Rustad: The members opposite were talking about fines and fines happening in the forest industry. They wanted to see these great big fines. Well, when companies are doing the right thing, when work is being done properly in the forest, why would there be fines? They seem to think that the measure of success in the forest
[ Page 5403 ]
industry is if companies are being fined. Strange how that picture is painted.

This act does a number of things in terms of housecleaning. It sets out some important provisions that help fuel things like the bio-industry that we have in the province, the importance around there, and it helps to build on what we're trying to do in this province, which is to build a positive environment to be able to allow the forest industry to go through the changes it needs to, to be able to help to support it and to be able to ultimately make a healthier industry coming forward.

You go and talk to the forest industry today, you go and talk to the companies today, and they're optimistic about the future. You know what's important about talking to those people? You don't have forestry workers if you don't have a company. You don't have the opportunity for ma-and-pop operations. You don't have the opportunity for union workers. You don't have the opportunity for those people to be able to create jobs, to be able to support their families, to be able to support communities, unless you have the structure in place that is actually going to do that.

What we are trying to do is trying to make that as supportive and as strong as possible so that this province can continue to see forestry as a backbone, continue to see it as what's critical for building communities and continue to see it supporting families, in particular, throughout rural B.C.

H. Lali: I rise in this chamber to take my place in the debate on Bill 7, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act. I started looking at the act. There's a lot in here that's still left unsaid, and I think the first question I asked myself was: "What was the minister thinking?" What was the Minister of Forests and Range thinking? Does the Minister of Forests and Range really know what he's doing?

[1550]

At first I thought: "He doesn't know what he's doing." That was my first impression that I got in terms of actually looking at this bill. But then I started thinking that no, he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and I'll lay it out here, right here in this House in front of you why it is that the minister knows exactly what he's doing and his real intent behind this amendment act that is here before us.

Just before us we had the hon. member for Nechako Lakes. I think that's his riding. You know, those comments can't be just left unsaid. It tells you, when listening to the hon. member, how brainwashed he seems to be and how reluctant he is to look at the realities of what is actually taking place in British Columbia and what has taken place now historically since 2001, since the Liberal government has taken office. He just doesn't see…. He's talking about how forestry is doing great, how it's coming back.

The reality is that in the last nine years and some months now — starting in their tenth year — in the province of British Columbia under this B.C. Liberal government there have been 75 sawmills and pulp mills and veneer plants that have closed under this government.

The other reality is that 35,000 family-supporting jobs have been eliminated by two things from this government. One, because of their do-nothing policy to actually face the problems that arise, whether it's the pine beetle issue that is there or the softwood sellout. They made a secret deal with Prime Minister Harper and the federal Conservatives. That's on the one side. Then the punitive policies of this government that have hurt communities that have workers and have allowed this massive consolidation of timber rights into the hands of a few corporations — friends of the B.C. Liberal Party. That's the reality.

We talked about the 75 sawmill and pulp mills. It doesn't speak about the dozens and dozens of small operations in every constituency, in every timber supply area across this province — the small-scale salvage operators, who owned operations anywhere from a million to, perhaps, even up to $10 million, employing anywhere from three or four workers up to 25, 30, 40 workers — and the value-added remanufacturing sector, which has been decimated by both the punitive policies of this government and the do-nothing attitude of this government.

They put forward this Bill 7, the Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, which is going to worsen that situation. I haven't even talked about the small business forest enterprise program, SBFEP. Under previous administrations under the Social Credit and the NDP, the governments of the day were obligated to actually turn a certain portion of the annual allowable cut towards the SBFEP program and also for the value-added remanufacturers and the small-scale salvage operators as well.

All three decimated by deliberate policy, punitive policy of this government to take what little timber they had in their hands away from them and actually give it to their corporate buddies, who were consolidating. And now what is it? I think it's over 90 percent of the timber in this province — the timber rights, the cutting permits, the annual allowable cut — that's in the hands of the friends of this B.C. Liberal government, and that trend continues.

Let's look at some of the details that have been put forward by the minister. I mean, most of the changes actually here in this bill appear to be removing regulatory requirements for forest management, which includes scaling changes, redetermining stumpage rates and extending timelines and management agreements.

This all fits, actually, with the deregulation of the forest industry, the oversight that the B.C. Liberals have been actually doing for the past seven to eight years and removing regulatory responsibilities from forest companies
[ Page 5404 ]
that have existed for generations. At the same time they've been undermining and cutting the capacity at the ministry.

[1555]

You know, it's a deliberate policy. On the one side, you see the massive giveaways to their friends in the corporate sector and forestry megagiants. On the other side, you see the capacity in the Ministry of Forests — those very folks who are actually out there, who are the oversight, who are able to be out there in the field to see if the companies were overcutting, who are out there to see that the forest was being managed in a responsible way….

They were also responsible for a lot of things that the Ministry of Environment had the agreements for between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, because the folks were there, employed within the ministry departments in each one of the timber supply areas.

Just to give you an example, in the Cascades timber supply area — which is Lillooet and Merritt combined — a few years back there were 109 FTEs, in 2001. These 109 people, their job…. They were the stewards of our forest. They managed our forest. They managed our forestry sector. They managed the forest resource. They managed all the cutting permits, oversaw the silviculture and everything that is related to forestry and the environment. They were able to do that.

They cut the FTEs — this is an old figure; now it's actually gone down below that — from 109 down to 49, less than half. Almost 60 percent of the FTEs were cut, and now they've removed the three positions in Princeton, in my constituency. They're also removing two positions in Lillooet as well. So it just goes down.

The capacity of the stewards of our forest industry, which is the department of forestry, is being systematically dismantled by this Liberal government. Yet they're turning over this regulatory responsibility, the oversight, to the fox — who is in charge of the henhouse — and that's to the very companies, the big forestry giants. This is just a continuation of that.

Also, changes in Bill 7 here actually continue the politicization of the forest practices by putting key decisions in the hands of the minister and taking it away from the public servants.

You know, in this province — as indeed in other provinces, but here in this province we're talking about Ministry of Forests — we have some of the best professionals in the business, who have historically worked from generations on and continue on, right here in British Columbia. What this government, what this minister, is doing is taking all that responsibility for oversight and for making sure that the regulations are being followed out of the hands of the objective Ministry of Forests officials and consolidating it in his own hands — the minister.

This is what this bill does. Just the same way all the timber is being consolidated in the hands of the big forestry giants, the big four companies in this province, the minister is now taking that responsibility into his own hands while the oversight part of it is given to the forest companies — the friends of this Liberal government who finance their election campaigns.

This is what's going on here, right here in this province, as they continue to cut the capacity of the ministry itself. I'll bet you in the future the minister will use this as an excuse to say: "You officials in the Ministry of Forests don't have all those responsibilities anymore that you had for the regulatory framework. I've given them away to forest companies or consolidated them into my own hands." In the future you're going to see some more rationalizing, which is basically cutting more jobs in the department of forestry itself.

Like I said, in the Cascades timber supply area we've seen from 109 down to 49 FTEs, lowered even further in this last round of cuts. You watch when the next year's budget comes down. The minister and the Finance Minister are going to use the excuse to say, "Well, they don't have enough to do anymore," because the forest companies are doing it or the minister has got that responsibility now. "So give a few more people their pink slips, because they're not needed." This is what's going to happen.

Then changes in Bill 7 also seem to be in line with the B.C. Liberal government's abandonment of the forest industry — I talked about that a little earlier — and also transfer of oversight for forest practices from the Crown to private forest companies. Again, the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[1600]

Now, also according to the Liberals, the changes in Bill 7, they say, will encourage better use of low-quality timber for bioenergy purposes and also improve wildfire protection. Some of the changes to the scaling provisions of the Forest Act will supposedly encourage utilization of low-grade timber and wood waste for bioenergy purposes, as I've stated.

If you look at the Liberal record, when can this Liberal government actually be trusted to do what it says it's going to do? They always say before an election that they're going to do one thing, and come after an election, they do completely the opposite — whether they're not going to sell B.C. Rail…. No, they're not going to make massive cuts to health care, education and social services, or they're not going to bring in the HST. We know all of those promises to be false. They've broken every one of those promises.

There's a lot more, and I could go on for hours talking about the record of broken promises by this Liberal government. It just goes on and on. So why would we or anybody in British Columbia now believe the minister or the B.C. Liberals — that somehow they're doing all of these things for…? What? They're going to actually
[ Page 5405 ]
encourage the better use of low-quality timber for bioenergy purposes and improve wildfire protection when they haven't been trusted to do that in the past? It's just another record of broken promises.

Previous to the introduction of this act only timber could be scaled. But under the changes, bioenergy products such as wood chips can also be scaled by either volume or weight — it says here. The amendment also allows for scaling to take place at harvesting or production sites in addition to scaling stations. Also, according to the B.C. Liberals, they're saying that they're providing what they call flexibility in scaling requirements, which allows harvesters' fibre to travel more directly from the harvest site to the marketplace. So the Liberals say.

That's their excuse. That's the excuse. That's the public line. That's the PR line. That's what the public affairs bureau has come out with for the minister to say — that they're doing this in the interests of actually zipping that fibre, as soon as it's cut down, to the facility to be cut and shipped off. Somehow things are being slowed down. That's what they're saying.

But when you start talking about weight and volume, there's very little left in terms of capacity in the ministry to be able to see how long that wood fibre or the chips or the stuff they're going to use for biofuels, etc…. How long is it going to be sitting and where? You know, when wood is wet, it looks a little bigger in volume and weighs a little bit more. But you allow it to dry out over a certain period of time, and the longer it goes, shrinkage in volume and in weight takes place.

How do we know that the province of British Columbia, the treasury, the Minister of Finance — my friend sitting here…? How do we know that all of a sudden there's not enough coming into the treasury because: "Oh, by the way, it doesn't seem to weigh quite as much or doesn't seem to be as voluminous as it's supposed to have been"? It's the people of British Columbia who'll be carrying the can for this when revenues start shrinking as well. It won't be just the wood and the weight and the volume but revenues as well.

B.C. Liberals are saying they're extending the timelines for innovative forestry practice agreements, allegedly allowing government and licensees to further explore these agreements' potential for increasing timber supply. The big question to ask the Liberals is: will extending these licences reduce government oversight? We're waiting to hear from the minister, and sure enough, we'll be questioning the minister when we come up to the discussion at third reading.

[1605]

The amendments in Bill 7. What we've seen is that there's also the annual allowable cut partition. Section 3 of Bill 7 replaces the not-in-force amendments made in 2008, allowing for an annual allowable cut partition for the purposes of bioenergy, but these amendments in Bill 7 are actually slightly different from those enacted in 2008 through the greenhouse gas reduction or the emissions standards amendment act. Questions should be raised about what those changes actually mean and why this new section actually had to be drafted as well.

When we debated the 2008 legislation, that purportedly opened up greater possibilities for bioenergy. The NDP raised concerns about adding more layers of tenure without a substantive review of the annual allowable cut and the timber supply. This concern remains, as the province does not have a substantial grasp on what is actually taking place right here, what is happening on the land base in British Columbia right now.

Why, it raised a question about oversight. Where's the oversight? Does anybody really know what is taking place in our forests if you don't have the human power within the ministry, the departments, the folks actually out on the ground, when this minister is still sitting there making cuts?

I've talked about Princeton and Lillooet. There are countless other communities all throughout the province where jobs, positions, have been eliminated within the Ministry of Forests itself in terms of oversight.

What about inventory? They've been in office for almost a decade, and admittedly, this government doesn't even know how much of a resource we've got left. What's out there? What's been cut? How much of it has been destroyed by the pine beetle because of the inaction of this government? They haven't even done an inventory.

They've got lots of money. They've got lots of money to actually throw around for a new retractable sunroof for a sports stadium in the Lower Mainland, but when it comes to doing an inventory in the hinterlands, as the Premier likes to call it — or the hurtlands, actually — and the abandonment that has taken place in forestry…. Seventy-five sawmills closed under this government and 35,000 permanent forestry jobs lost.

When you go up to the government and say, "Put some money in to do a proper inventory," they've got no money. But they've got billions upon billions of dollars to put, like I said, a sunroof on a stadium, a cost overrun on a convention centre in the Lower Mainland, a big party in Whistler — no problem.

There's the Premier sitting there with a blank cheque — just puts his signature on it, gives it out — but not when it comes to actually managing the forest resource, our number one industry, or supposedly our number one industry, which has historically put billions and billions of dollars into the provincial treasury for health care, education and everything else and not to mention building roads and hospitals, etc. There's no money. Those are the kinds of questions.

Silviculture. We were all caught up by 2001, or actually by the late 1990s it was all caught up. There was a seven-year backlog of NSR lands by the time we took office in 1991. By the time we had left, it was all caught up, and it was a shared responsibility between the government of the
[ Page 5406 ]
day and also between forest companies to make sure that that would never happen again.

They've absolved their friends in the forest industry of any responsibility, and within nine years now we look at this. As we sit here today, there's at least a five-year backlog of non-sufficiently restocked forest lands. In just less than a decade they've absolved their friends in the corporate megagiants in the forest industry of any responsibility.

What does the minister come up with a few months earlier? Or was it just a couple of months earlier? A no net deforestation act. Where are the responsibilities? Two pages — that was it. It was just a motherhood statement — no funding in there, no actual mechanism by which the forest companies would be held responsible. They're taking all the wood out of this province, cutting it, making lots of money doing it, but no responsibility for restocking the lands that they actually have cut. That's what we saw.

Those are just three areas that I've mentioned right here.

It's also making amendments to the Wildfire Act. Now, although the B.C. Liberals claim that changes in Bill 7 will improve wildfire protection, changes here are actually simply tinkering at the edges. This bill does nothing to address the real problems with wildfire protection.

[1610]

Community and provincial wildfire preparedness — that's the answer. There's no funding available. You can ask the minister. He says, "I'm sorry. You got no funds available. We got this economic tsunami that hit us" — the only ones who didn't know that it was coming.

Also, the changes extend the period for prosecution for human-caused fires from two to three years to allow for complex investigations to be thorough and complete. It also allows for people who start — or risk starting — wildfires to be prosecuted, and that's not a bad thing. I'm not going to say that everything here is not noteworthy; this one is.

But here's another section under here: "Improving the process by which forest companies can recover costs when they support provincial wildfire suppression efforts." It's supposed to be in here. It's supposed to be improving it. The question to ask the minister is: will this mean that more money will be flowing from the government to forest companies?

Lord knows they've been shovelling it from the back of a pickup. I know a few years ago they actually had absolved forest companies, taken away their responsibility to actually go out there and fight some of the fires that would have started. I'm just wondering if this is going to be a furtherance of that and if it isn't just another giveaway.

Also, under section 3, it changes the definition of "harvested volume" to include the accounting of timber sold on the basis of cruises before the timber is cut, where previously only scaling had been included. Now, cruising as a method of accounting for timber could also be open to abuse — as opposed to scaling.

We've got a whole slate full of sections here which allow the minister, actually, to increase or waive a harvested volume limit specified for forest licence or tree farm licence at the minister's discretion, which takes power away from officials in the ministry and puts it into the hands of the minister.

If you look at section 6, the changes here expand the definition of "scale." Previously, like I mentioned, scale meant to determine both the volume of the timber and its quality. Now "scale" can mean either the volume of the timber or its quality, or both. The question is, you know: could this amendment have a large impact on how timber is accounted for and compensated for?

Under section 7, it allows the minister — instead of the regional manager, the district manager or a forest officer — to grant exemptions for where timber can be scaled and who is authorized to scale, under conditions decided by the minister. This is basically increased politicization of the process by putting decision-making in the hands of the minister instead of public servants. Again, this takes power away from officials and gives it to the minister. It erodes the decision-making and the control that was previously in the ministry.

Section 8. Similar to the above amendment, it replaces references to officials with references to the minister and further politicizes forestry decision-making. Now, responsibilities to be removed from forestry officials and given to the minister in the amendment include that the minister can actually waive the recheck of scale calculations where they would normally be required if volumes differ between the original and checked scales by more than a certain percentage.

Before, the ministry would do that. Officials in the ministry would do that. They would recheck. Now that decision lies with the minister. We know that the folks within the ministry are objective, but we know that for the minister, as a politician sitting at the cabinet table, the objectivity goes out the window. So what's going to be a determining factor for the minister to decide whether there should be a recheck or not?

Is it going to be somebody sort of looking at the donors list of the B.C. Liberal Party to see who's donated what and how much and when? The minister says: "Well, really, I don't want to upset these people. We've got an election coming up." There goes the objectivity. Subjective reasoning — that's what'll happen. The power ought not to be removed from the officials, hon. Speaker.

Section 9 adds a new section respecting the scaling of special forest products. It allows timber that will be used as a special forest product to be transported to a place other than the place it is to be scaled and to be manufactured before being scaled.

[1615]
[ Page 5407 ]

You know, you've got to define what a special product is, first of all. Where's the oversight? Where's the accountability in all of this? When was the timber cut? When was it removed from there? Where did it go? Where did it go from that place to the next? Where was it produced into a product, and how long did that take? What has happened to stumpage rates between then…?

It could be six months or even a year before the timber was cut, or even before that, where it was going to be cruised. From cruising to cutting to transporting to retransporting to storage to retransporting to it being manufactured and becoming a product, when will we know if the company isn't sitting there cutting the timber when it was cruised and it was at a higher stumpage rate?

Stumpage rates have gone down a year later, and then all of a sudden the forest company says, "Aha. Here I was able to make a saving, because all I did was sit there with the timber while the volume shrank," and while the weight shrank as well, if you're looking at wood chips and all of that. It's fraught with all sorts of abuses, and then it's up to the minister to decide, not an objective person in the ministry itself.

Section 10 once again replaces a reference to "a regional manager, district manager or forest officer" with a reference to the minister, allowing, actually, the minister to issue an applicant a scale site authorization if satisfied that scale can be performed at that site. In section 11, again it's the minister who takes the power away from the officials. It now would give the minister the authority to refuse the scale site authorization and attach conditions to the scale site authorization, instead of an objective forestry official.

Section 12 is the same thing. Power is taken away from the officials into the hands of the minister, and these changes give the ministry the authority to suspend or cancel a scale site authorization. Section 13 is taking power away, again, from the chief forester, an independent officer. It's taking power away into the hands of the minister. Section 14. Again a power is taken away. The authority is taken away from the regional manager. There's a reference to the minister once again. It just goes on and on.

We've seen what this government has done in terms of the big giveaways it has given to its friends. If that wasn't enough, if the softwood sellout wasn't enough, if getting rid of the appurtenancy clause — the social contract — wasn't enough, if killing the 90-day mill closure review process wasn't enough…. If killing the office of the job protection commissioner, whose job it was to look objectively and independently at whether a company could make a go of it and make a recommendation to actually save jobs in the community wasn't enough….

The fire regulations I've already talked about. Eliminating competition from the family-run operations, the SBFEP, the small-scale salvage operators and evaluated…. If eliminating those wasn't enough, if increasing log exports by — what is it? — 1,100 percent wasn't enough…. It's just cash going into the pockets of those companies that ship logs elsewhere, keep the money, go to the United States and buy sawmills. What is it — about 33 sawmills? The member for Cowichan Valley was very eloquent in pointing out how many sawmills those very companies are buying across the border.

Timber Sales — putting the fox in charge of the henhouse again. All of those things. If that wasn't enough in terms of the giveaways to their friends in the corporate sector, now we've got this Bill 7 which is, again, giving more and more oversight to companies that it is the job of the Ministry of Forests to actually have an oversight over. To take that away from the ministry officials, put it into the hands of those very companies that the officials were supposed to have an oversight over…. Where that didn't happen, the minister puts the responsibility in his hands.

We'll wait until the next reading of this to see what the minister has to say in terms of answering some of those questions.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a pleasure for me to stand and close debate, but I have to admit that I found some of the comments over the past few hours of this debate to have been rather strange.

[1620]

We are talking about an amendment act, an act that deals with a number of different issues, including: finding different ways of selling timber and making sure that it is brought to the marketplace so that it can be utilized for bioenergy; allowing our fire investigators an additional year to go out and perform investigations on the landscape rather than have the window close off two years, allowing our investigators three years in what is an increasingly complex legal system that we have to find and work our way through; extending the innovative forest practices agreement, which I think, generally speaking, members opposite are supportive of.

It's going to be interesting to see when we get to the committee stage of this debate, whether members opposite support the extension of the innovative forest practices agreement or not.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm predicting something here, and I could be proven to be wrong, but I suspect that members opposite in three weeks or so will be complaining that they haven't had sufficient time to debate the bills.

Yet what we've heard for the last several hours bears no semblance to this bill. It speaks very generally about forestry initiatives. It has nothing to do with what this
[ Page 5408 ]
bill is about. In fact, this debate extended back into the week prior to us being out of session for a week, so I find it disconcerting that I suspect members opposite will claim that they haven't had sufficient time to debate the bill when they've actually just wasted about three hours of time not talking about anything that is relevant with regards to Bill 7. We'll see whether that prediction comes true or not.

However, I'm not going to waste any time, and I am going to call second reading of Bill 7 at this time.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I call second reading of Bill 13, Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Bill 13 — Forests and Range
(First Nations Woodland Licence)
Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. P. Bell: I move Bill 13 be read a second time now.

Bill 13 offers a new tenure opportunity for the First Nations of this province. This stems back to a meeting that I had about a year and a half ago with First Nations in Prince George, when they first identified that one of the key areas of interest they had was moving the type of tenure that they had — forest and range opportunities and forest and range agreements — from shorter term, that being five-year licences, to renewable licences longer term, minimum 25 years or renewable, which is the case with regards to this new form of tenure, and specifically, area-based licences.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

This tenure responds to that. The new First Nations woodland licence not only offers an area-based tenure but also a tenure that is renewable. It starts out at 25 years and can be extended. It also offers other forms of products within that tenure. It's a stronger form of tenure that will allow First Nations to practise their own cultural practices on those lands but to also receive benefit from other botanical products that are on that tenure.

I think it's a very innovative approach. The discussions we've had with First Nations have indicated that they're excited about getting on with it. We've had a number of First Nations that have offered to come forward as early adopters of this tenure. We've already started working with different First Nations around the province, looking at how we can develop this model.

I do think it's important to note, and I suspect this will come up both in the second reading debate as well as in the committee stage of the debate, that it will be very challenging to provide these tenures out and identify the specific areas on the landscape in which First Nations will be able to acquire these tenures.

It really depends on the nature of where the First Nations traditional territories are located in some parts of the province. It will not be as challenging where the timber is not necessarily fully allocated or there are additional volumes that can be accessed. In areas like Vancouver Island, where we already have fully committed the timber supply, it's going to be far more challenging.

[1625]

Also discussions will go on with First Nations, and I suspect this will come up as well in the committee stage of the debate, on the size of some of these tenures, which of course will vary depending on the First Nation location, their interest in the resource and the size of the First Nation.

This does respond, I believe, effectively to the request that was made by First Nations, by the leadership council, by the forest council, and it also responds to recommendation No. 25 in the working round table — that specifically being to create a more functional, effective form of tenure that allows First Nations to be full participants in the landscape.

I think we've seen good success over the past number of years with First Nations tenures in this province. My colleague the Minister of Forests from 2001 to 2005, now Attorney General, introduced the notion of the forest and range opportunities. In fact, now across the province I believe we have about 168 different First Nations that have some form of tenure. It represents about 11 percent of the total timber that is under tenure across the province. That's from ground zero just about seven or eight years ago, where First Nations really had very limited access to timber.

This is an evolutionary step of the First Nations tenure processes that were started some seven years ago. It's taking the First Nations tenure to a new model that fully engages them in their interests on the landscape.

We did sit down with a number of different First Nations groups and talked to them about this and the consultation process of developing the tenure. But also, as we went through the round table, we had two distinguished individuals, Dave Porter and Lynda Price, who are aboriginal people, on the round table. Both were very focused on ensuring that we had good, solid recommendations for First Nations peoples, and this directly,
[ Page 5409 ]
I think, responds to both of those individuals' desires to make sure that we have a tenure of this nature.

While I do believe it will take time to move forward on this tenure, I do think it will clearly be more complex in parts of the province. Unfortunately, I hate to say this, but your part of the province is probably one of those, Madam Speaker. There are other parts that will be easier. But we are absolutely committed as a forest service to moving forward with this, and I'm certainly looking forward to comments from the members of the opposition at both second reading and the committee stage of this bill.

B. Simpson: I'm glad the minister is looking forward to our comments about this bill, given what he said about our comments on the last bill. Hopefully, there are some things in here that we can say that the minister may take to heart.

Let me open my comments with some reflections on what the minister had to say about this bill, and then there are some areas that I want to explore over the next few minutes. First and foremost, I think it's intriguing in this bill…. I would agree wholeheartedly with the minister that issuing an area-based licence for First Nations is in principle — and let me emphasize that: in principle — a good thing.

As the minister must know, and as former ministers know, volume-based licences have been problematic for First Nations. The minister indicated some of those problems. So an area-based tenure that is giving First Nations the ability to actually have a line drawn on a map, what they're going to be able to manage…. Second that we agree with in principle is the duration, the 25 to 99 years renewable. I think those are good things that we should applaud, and we should work with the government to make sure that those are actually realized.

The second area where I would agree wholeheartedly with the minister that there are some interesting things — and I congratulate the government that it's not just in this bill but also in the reconciliation agreements with the Haida and on the midcoast — is the willingness to expand some of the opportunities for First Nations.

In the case of the reconciliation agreements, we saw for the first time a recognition of carbon and carbon trading as a potential economic opportunity. Although, of course, carbon pricing and carbon trading is fraught with all kinds of problems. The fact that the government in those reconciliation agreements was willing to say that our public land base may become an area of interest for the economic trading in carbon and that we want to recognize First Nations to have that ability to do that and not preclude them from doing that, should it arise — I think the government or whoever came up with that should be congratulated for that foresight.

[1630]

In Bill 13 there is a section, as the minister indicated, where there is uniqueness to this licence because it does recognize some First Nations traditional activities. It does recognize that some revenue could be derived from managing and charging fees for botanical products. So there is a bit of movement here beyond normative — what we call the 2-by-4 mentality or the timber-only mentality on the public land base. I think those things are good.

In principle, how could the opposition potentially raise questions about this? Well, let me go through some of that, because we're, quite frankly, of mixed minds as to where the government is going with this, and I think that's going to be reflected in what we have to say.

First and foremost, one of the questions we have is: who was it that the minister actually consulted with in order to take this particular approach? Because, in essence, all this approach is, is to actually put a cloak over two existing licences — woodlot licence or a community forest licence — and rename them First Nations woodland licences. If you read this bill, effectively, it will be determined on the size of the licence whether or not the regulations that apply to woodlots will apply or the regulations that apply to community forests will apply. It begs the question of: is this truly a new, unique First Nations licence addressing historical First Nations claims?

Those are questions that we will be asking once we get into third reading. The second aspect of the consultation is curious, and it's reflected in the minister's comments where he indicated that his first reflection on this came from a meeting with First Nations in Prince George. This has been floating around for quite some time — the idea that we need to find a mechanism to allow First Nations to engage in the land base in a meaningful way and not, as First Nations have called it, as environmentalists called it, talk and log. Keep First Nations bound up in discussion tables, in treaty tables, interim agreement tables while you log off their traditional territories so that they end up holding nothing.

I would argue that the minister's comments about some of the difficulties of applying this in some areas of the province is because we have talked and logged far too long, and in some areas of the province, it's a question of whether the volume actually even exists to issue some of these licences, as well as the second aspect of it.

It was pointed out in the last debate on the last bill — the monopolization of tenure in this province under this government, the corporate consolidation that's writ large as a result of changes they made in 2003, and that monopoly on Vancouver Island, as Corky Evans called it, the oligopoly in the Interior, is going to cause real problems. That's one of the reasons why First Nations struggled with these forest range agreements, forest range opportunities. I'll have more to say about that shortly.

The question we're being asked is: who was it the minister actually consulted with? To have a conversation with some First Nations in Prince George and to get a recommendation out of the round table doesn't actually address whether or not the minister and the government — because all
[ Page 5410 ]
the minister is, is a representative of government — did actually consult with the appropriate entities and agencies.

The leadership council isn't there to convene and ask whether this is an appropriate mechanism any more, because it's effectively dissolved and has been replaced with the All Chiefs Task Force, and the First Nations Forestry Council tells us they didn't come back and chat with them about it. This is a provincial government–funded agency that was left out of the loop in the formulation of Bill 13, at least as far as we have been informed.

Who was it that the government consulted with? And I'll be curious, during the third-stage reading of this bill, to actually get the minister to tell us who it is that's excited about moving forward on this. Those are questions that we will have.

Now, the minister admitted upfront, as he's wont to do, his expectation of some of the questions that we're going to ask and some of the things that we're going to raise, and he's raised a couple of them. First off, the volume. Can you actually issue these?

[1635]

That was the problem with forest range agreements. It's going to be a problem with this, and we will be asking some questions about that.

Second is the whole issue of can you issue area-based licences over traditional territories. One of the areas of questions we have is also on some of the legal implications of imposing Crown regulations on First Nations, and I want to get to that shortly. The size of the volume for First Nations — that was a problem with forest and range agreements, as I'll indicate. And then the whole time — that's the one I wanted to key in on.

The minister actually admitted in estimates debate that this was going to take some time to figure out and some time to get on the ground, yet 50 percent at least of the forest and range agreements that this is supposedly going to replace have expired or are about to expire, and if it takes a couple of years to get this on the ground, the rest will expire. First Nations are beginning to say, rightly so: "What happens in the interim?"

The FRAs and FROs, the forest and range opportunities and forest and range agreements, were, in many cases, minuscule, and did not address the need for First Nations to get access to timber resources in a meaningful way. But are they now going to go into a gap here where they have no opportunities on their land base, as it takes time to ramp this up?

This is against the backdrop of a minister that's overseeing the gutting of the Forest Service — a gutting in its real budget year over year and a gutting of its staff. Because there's a whole bunch of other initiatives that the ministry is having to pick up, it begs the question of: are the appropriate resources there to facilitate this?

Is one of the reasons why it's going to take so long because the minister is actually not making the presentations he needs to make to Treasury Board, making the presentations he needs to make to defend the Forest Service at a time when we actually need to give them more resources to do work — not just this work of figuring out First Nations tenure but also the work of figuring out how to reinventory our land base, of figuring out the work of how we get involved in forest health activities and ecosystem restoration, and figuring out the work of how we transition this industry to more than 2-by-4s for China?

Against that backdrop the question is: is part of the problem here in the time lag that's going to occur as a result of a minister that's overseeing the dismantling of the Forest Service that he's charged to represent to Treasury Board and represent in the cabinet?

Now, in my looking at this bill, I've tried to figure out how you measure whether this actually meets the test, whether this will do what historically has been asked by First Nations. I think there are two key areas that we need to explore as we get into second reading on this bill. It's whether or not it's going to meet that test.

First off, there are going to be legal questions as a result of how this bill is structured. In the William case, which was the fairly significant court case in the Tsilhqot'in area, the Chilcotin area, the judge indicated that First Nations were not beholden or bound to Crown forestry regulations in legislation in what was clearly going to be considered where they had territorial rights that were clearly articulated.

This bill actually seems to be walking the knife edge of that legal ruling. The way it walks the knife edge is that it actually requires First Nations to concede to Crown obligations, regulations, legislation — concede to all of that, including submitting a management plan, etc. We have some questions as to whether or not that will end up being challenged, because forest and range agreements were challenged by First Nations in the court. This government lost, so they constructed a vehicle to give First Nations rights to the land base.

It was a volume-based tenure. It was short term. There were all kinds of problems associated with it, but how they delivered it was delivered like a head tax, only in reverse. The number of First Nations in your band or your First Nations group that was being assigned a forest and range agreement, you got a formula for cash up front and a formula for volume. That was challenged in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court found that this government was in the wrong, that they should not do that. That's why forest and range agreements changed to forest and range opportunities, to address that.

[1640]

We have questions, again, about the legality of some of the things in here and the legality of forcing First Nations, in order to get one of these, to first off have to be involved in an interim agreement of some kind. So the First Nations have to be playing in the sandbox that
[ Page 5411 ]
the Crown designates is the appropriate sandbox before you get this little treat. Secondly, do First Nations have to concede to apply Crown regulations and Ministry of Forests regulations to what is their traditional territory, based on the William case? And thirdly, whether or not reserve land — so federal reserve land — can actually come under….

Again, in the structure of the bill, First Nations are able, as in woodlots or community forests, to bring private lands and bring reserve lands — it's explicitly stated — into a provincial Crown tenure. We've had individuals look at that, and they question whether or not you can actually do that legally. We'll look forward to asking the minister about those things.

There'll be legal tests of this, and we'll have questions about that. It remains to be seen whether the government will actually have to defend this particular agreement in court, like they had to defend the forest and range agreements in court as well.

The second benchmark, I would suggest, that needs to be applied to this is the new relationship document itself. Again, this is a document that the government put forward in 2005 promising a whole new relationship with First Nations, and the language of the new relationship has become the benchmark by which this government is judged by First Nations.

The language of the recent months — I would suggest since the last election — has been scathing in its indictment of this government about its failure to realize the new relationship. Why is that? It's because the Premier, in his promise of a new relationship, used language that set a benchmark very, very high.

I'm reading from the document itself. For Hansard's sake, I'll mention when I'm quoting. First off, from the statement of vision in The New Relationship: "We agree to a new government-to-government relationship based on respect, recognition and accommodation of aboriginal title and rights." So one of the benchmarks First Nations use in determining whether or not they're realizing the new relationship is whether or not they are sitting in government-to-government.

In Bill 13 one of the questions that's unclear is: who is the government sitting with in order to negotiate a woodlot licence or a community forest licence and call it a First Nations woodland licence? Those are questions that are out there. Are they the traditional government forums? Are they the Indian Act bands? Are they not-for-profit organizations? There are all kinds of questions because the government hasn't resolved what it means when it says "government-to-government."

In the second paragraph of the vision, it says "shared decision-making about the land and resources and for revenue- and benefit-sharing" are processes and institutions that the government is going to establish, that the government will recognize "aboriginal title 'in its full form,' including the inherent right for the community to make decisions as to the use of the land and, therefore, the right to have a political structure for making those decisions, which is constitutionally guaranteed in section 35."

What does that mean with respect to this bill? It gets to the heart of this bill, in that First Nations have been promised under the new relationship that they would be the determiners of their fate, that they would have the ability to form structures that allow them to make decisions that are in their best interests.

Bill 13 says: "If you're going to play in our sandbox, here's a little treat for you. If you come in and you say that you're going to agree with some interim measures of some kind, we've got this little treat." And then who is it they're going to actually give the treat to, and who derives benefit from it? That remains to be seen.

Now, one of the questions in all of this in the new relationship document is that: "We agree to work together in this new relationship to achieve strong governments, social justice and economic self-sufficiency for First Nations." That's the crux of the matter with respect to issuing tenures for First Nations: does it become a tool for economic self-sufficiency?

[1645]

This is where I strongly disagree with the minister's characterization of forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities. As an opposition, we have raised these challenges time after time since they were issued.

A 2008 report, the Strategic Aboriginal Forestry Enterprise Roadmap, surveyed 90 of the First Nations that had these forest and range agreements. They found that there was no noticeable increase in forestry employment as a result of those agreements — no noticeable or significant increase in forestry employment as a result of those agreements.

How does that lead to economic self-sufficiency when you give an agreement that is so minuscule in terms of the amount of volume that it gives to First Nations that it becomes untenable and gives the First Nations no ability to create direct employment?

The report expresses what many First Nations have been saying to the opposition about the deals. They are not economically viable. They come without adequate resources for assistance. First Nations are stuck being log sellers in a buyer-controlled market.

That's our assessment of forest and range agreements, and if a new tenure is going to replace that, then surely the government must indicate that they've learned the lessons from the failure of the forest and range opportunities and forest and range agreements. For the minister to stand up and say they were successful suggests to me that they're not willing to embrace the fact that they were not, on the whole, successful. There are some cases where they were successful, but they were not on the whole successful.
[ Page 5412 ]

Why? It goes to the heart of this tenure that they're going to issue. They were issued on a per-capita basis. So if you have a small band with few numbers, you got a small amount of money up front and you got a small amount of volume to deal with. That's one of the questions we have on this.

What criteria will this government use to issue whatever area they're going to issue? If it's based on population, again, I think it's going to be challenged in the court system, and the government will lose that battle. I think it's going to saddle First Nations, which are trying to rebuild themselves and trying to come back into our economic world, with uneconomic tenures again.

No lessons learned. If that's the case in this tenure, then it saddles First Nations with a bad system. We've already had that experiment. We don't need to continue with it.

Continuing on with the new relationship, one of the things that The New Relationship promised under its principles section is: "Recognition of the need to preserve each First Nation's decision-making authority." I've already pointed out that this bill actually does not allow that because the decision-making authority comes back to the Crown.

The Crown will sign off on the management plans. The Crown will determine what regulations will apply. As a consequence, yes, it may be a defined area, but it is still the Crown telling the First Nations what it is they're going to do on what they deem to be their traditional territories. That's not what the new relationship promised.

Secondly, financial capacity for First Nations. Again, this is a principle in The New Relationship. "Financial capacity for First Nations and resourcing for the province to develop new frameworks for shared land and resource decision-making and to engage in negotiations."

Again, our question to the minister on this is: how is the minister going to do this in a short time period — not a long time period — given the fact that in estimates debate we canvassed the minister on all of the resource constraints the minister is now dealing with in the Ministry of Forests?

Then: "Mutually acceptable agreements for sharing benefits, including resource revenue-sharing." That's a quote from The New Relationship, in the principles section again. "Mutually acceptable agreements for sharing benefits, including resource revenue-sharing."

That's where the rub is right now as far as we're being informed about this tenure. It's a tenure that simply puts a cloak over existing tenures and calls it a First Nations tenure. There are a couple of unique aspects, given what I've already indicated, but for the most part, it's either a woodlot or a community forest called a woodlands tenure.

[1650]

The fundamental question for First Nations has always been — and the minister must know this; he must have heard it: why do First Nations have to pay stumpage? Why do First Nations have to pay resource rents, and why do First Nations, if they're going to be given a tenure, have to give through the forestry revenue streams only to get it back in some other fashion?

That is a fundamental question that has been asked. It may be one of the reasons why the government never went and talked to the forestry council, because that's what they would have put on the table. It was submissions made to the forestry round table that never went into the forestry round table recognitions.

The fact is that the government knew this was a potential path that they were going to have to go down. If they were going to find a tenure that was acceptable to First Nations, if they were going to define an area in traditional territories that was of sufficient size and they were going to be flexible on the regulations that applied to that, so that territorial rights were actually recognized, which means that First Nations traditional activities and First Nations historical approaches to land base would be allowed…. The fundamental question would come down to: why, then, do First Nations have to write cheques for stumpage?

The minister has to know that stumpage, in many cases, is what broke the back of forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities. Many of these forest and range opportunities and agreements were so small — they were in a buyers' market, and they were assigned these huge stumpage bills, silviculture bills, all of those things — that they couldn't actually make a go of it. It wasn't economically viable.

The question we're being asked by First Nations is: will these go down the same path? Nice concept. In principle, area base is good. In principle, some unique aspects of this are good. In practice, not workable, have not learned the same lessons as forest and range agreements and forest and range opportunities, and subject potentially to court challenges if we go down this path. But more than anything else, it does not address the fact that the government is actually going to continue to charge normal stumpage.

What flies in the face of the new relationship is the promise of resource-sharing. First Nations, in order to be able to create jobs — which is what they want access to the land base for — to create expertise, to create economic benefit for their own communities, to have something for their young people to come in and do on their own traditional territories that also allows them to take exportable skills outside of those territories…. All of those things mean these tenures have to be economically viable.

The fundamental question of why the First Nations have to cut cheques to the government, when they're just going to get that back in some other form, remains. This bill fails on that point. We will canvass that in much more detail with the minister.
[ Page 5413 ]

The government did make room in the softwood lumber agreement, so they can't use the argument that if we don't charge stumpage somehow, we're going to be in trouble with the softwood lumber agreement. That's not the case. It's my understanding that clause was accepted in that agreement and that they may have to come up with a First Nations tenure that may have alternate means of stumpage and rents and various other things. It was recognized there, so we will have some serious questions as to why the government chose to go down that path in particular.

With that, Madam Speaker, I'll sit down.

N. Macdonald: My remarks, too, will be fairly limited. This is another amendment to existing forest and range statutes, and in this case it creates the First Nations woodland act. So the real devil in this is in the detail.

As the minister has laid out, this is essentially a new name for a land area. What's different about it is that the tenure is going to be exclusively First Nations in terms of a licence. In terms of how it's organized, it's laid out here as something that will be familiar to people in British Columbia. It's very similar to community forests or woodlots in terms of its structure.

[1655]

Now, having been in power for quite a long time, the B.C. Liberals have had plenty of opportunity to organize and address issues. I think previous attempts to deal fairly with First Nations by this government have obviously been failures, and you hear that again and again.

The forest and range opportunities that the minister alluded to, while there are a number of them — and there are also a number of these forest and range agreements…. There's no question that they have been problematic. They are also ongoing problems for First Nations related to the private land giveaways.

So the record with dealing with First Nations is, to be polite, checkered, and I think, far more accurately, as with many of the B.C. Liberal forest policies, it's a succession of failures.

With the FRAs and FROs the minister will know that there really was very little in terms of resources that were put towards making those projects work. The timber on offer really was not in the volumes that would allow the First Nations to develop the expertise that they needed. So what we ended up with was really, for the most part, just First Nations entering into the log market.

This is clearly an attempt to improve on that and to try to, in some way, be effective in reaching some of the really grandiose promises that the Premier has made around this issue, as is so often the case — big promises and very little in terms of results.

The question that the minister had, which is going to be the really complex one here with this tenure issue, is to find the land. The minister has pointed out that there are certainly parts of the province, including Vancouver Island, where there's just not really much area available for a new land-based tenure.

While it perhaps is most complex in this area, there really are many parts of the province — in fact, certainly a vast majority of the southern part of the province — where actually finding the land is going to be incredibly complex. If you can find it in certain areas and not in other areas, it raises questions around equity, around fair treatment for all First Nations that I think is something that we need to examine.

Then there are also going to be questions about how this work is actually going to be done, and the previous speaker from Cariboo North hit on a key point.

It is common for this government and for this minister to talk about possibilities and about work that is going to be done. The fact is that on the ground the Ministry of Forests has been so severely compromised that very often they don't have the capacity to do the work that's needed. We see at this time existing failures around waste, existing failures around compliance and enforcement, existing failures within the ministry around a whole host of issues that is no fault of the people that are asked to do the work. They simply have seen their resources and the policy framework that they work within degraded consistently by the government.

The key part with this legislation is to go through, to understand exactly how the minister sees this working, to test how much thought has gone into the preparation of this legislation. Certainly, from the minister's comments, one would be led to conclude that there is still a tremendous amount of thought that needs to take place.

The challenges for putting this in place are real. The expectations that have been built for First Nations have been, as a rule, exceedingly high. The ability that the government has shown in being actually able to produce has been consistently low. So we're going to be first trying to understand how the minister and the ministry, the government, came to putting this piece of legislation together.

As the previous speaker from Cariboo North alluded to, we'll be asking: really, who has been consulted? The minister talked about meetings based first in Prince George. So we'll be just, you know, testing. Has the First Nations Forestry Council been properly consulted as part of this? What was the nature of the various consultations? We'll be testing the minister on that.

[1700]

We'll also be seeing what the minister has in mind in terms of the size of the tenures. Very clearly, if these tenures are going to be successful, there has to be significant enough scale to allow the building of capacity. Very clearly, First Nations or any community that has a community forest — any group that has a tenure like this — wants to use the opportunity there to build capacity within the community.

As I said, so far with the government efforts around FROs and FRAs, they really have not resulted in that
[ Page 5414 ]
capacity-building. We end up seeing really very little other than the selling of logs. I think part of the problem that has been identified there is just that scale issue.

There are also questions around stumpage, around the issue of how revenue is going to be collected from this tenure. It seems fairly specifically alluded to in the softwood lumber agreement that there is room for the government to come up with rules specifically for First Nations around stumpage. Part of what we want to examine in terms of looking at this legislation is how the government came to the conclusion that the stumpage was correct and the best way to do it and what sort of discussions took place with First Nations in terms of arriving at that decision.

We will be asking about those issues. We'll also be looking at some of the things that the minister has talked about related to using these land-based tenures. It has usually been referred to in the context of community forests, but I think it could easily apply to this sort of tenure, as well, in terms of being used as part of a strategy for dealing with wildfires.

As the minister will know — and, hopefully, as people in the province will know — a tremendous number of First Nations communities as well as really a great number of rural communities sit quite exposed to the dangers of a wildfire. The work that was supposed to have been done around fuel management simply has not been done seven years after the Filmon report indicated that it needed to be done. It will be interesting to test the minister and see if there's an opportunity to use this tenure to deal with that deficiency in terms of B.C. Liberal policy.

Overall, this is more tinkering with a tenure system that has failed the public. The public, after all, are owners of the public land. It's a tenure system that has been fundamentally changed from the way W.A.C. Bennett saw its value when he set it up many decades ago. I have said many times in the House — and the Leader of the Opposition and previous critics have been clear — that there does need to be a fundamental change to our tenure system.

Just as with Bill 7, with Bill 13 as we go through section by section, on individual sections we will be identifying those areas that are problematic. If they are not supportable, then we'll be voting against them section by section. Certainly, I look forward to that opportunity to test the minister on this initiative.

With that, I believe we have another speaker on our side that would like to address Bill 13.

D. Donaldson: I rise to speak today to the second reading of Bill 13, Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. I'm very happy to speak to this bill.

[1705]

I can speak to it especially where I come from and in terms of Gitxsan traditional territory and Wet'suwet'en traditional territory. We also have Gitanyow, Tahltan and Taku River Tlingit in my constituency. The comments I'm going to make today in second reading are of a general nature, but they'll be a general nature from the perspective of where I live, which is on Gitxsan traditional territory.

From what I understand, there has been some consultation with the Gitxsan through the Gitxsan Chiefs Office on this bill, Bill 13, and I commend the minister for that. They were asked to give comments on this bill.

But in speaking with the representatives at the Gitxsan Chiefs Office, one of their takes on this bill is that it recognizes the need for revenue-sharing between First Nations and the government when it comes to trees and revenue generated from trees.

I'll be interested in canvassing that during committee stage with the minister because that's an important recognition and an important fact that the Gitxsan believe this bill represents. I don't see it in the contents of the bill. I look forward to talking about that with the minister during the committee stage.

The Gitxsan, as well, have a forest licence, and it's a 300,000-cubic-metre annual cut or in that vicinity. It's held under Gitxsan Forest Enterprises. It's been a tough go, as my colleague from Cariboo North explained. Many of the forest licences held by First Nations have had a tough go in the last little while, especially trying to make it economically viable.

I know that the Gitxsan see this bill as an opportunity to make that forest licence work in a better way for the people of the region, especially from an economic point of view. However, I'm not sure how this bill is going to address that. That's a forest licence, a volume-based licence. What we're talking about here, as the minister pointed out, is an area-based licence.

Again, during more specific details during committee stage, I'll be interested in hearing from the minister if there are provisions where, for instance, the Gitxsan, with a volume-based forest licence, can somehow turn that into an area-based licence under this bill. They seem to have gotten the indication that that's going to be possible.

As well, when we're talking about economic viability — again as my colleague from Cariboo North pointed out — it's around stumpage and how this kind of bill would address that. I note that in the bill there are some references to stumpage and that the holder of one of the woodlot licences under this bill will be paying stumpage.

Again, that's something that I look forward to exploring with the minister. Perhaps he envisions different ways that stumpage can be addressed under this bill, which I can't find in the contents of it at the moment. That's an important component to making these forest licences economically viable, especially in areas I represent that have such a high level of unemployment and
[ Page 5415 ]
also not exactly a great wood profile from the aspect of pulpwood versus sawlogs.

Another aspect of this bill is who the agreement, the tenure, would be with. I'm sure the minister is well aware, coming from the north, that in the Gitxsan area and especially in the Wet'suwet'en traditional territories as well, it's based on a wilp system — a house system. In the Gitxsan country it's over 60 wilps, and they each have a very distinct land base in the Gitxsan traditional territories. There are traditional laws around that land base. There's recognition by other house groups of coming onto another house group's territory. This is the basic social, economic, political unit in the Gitxsan system, the wilp.

[1710]

This bill talks about how a representative who can make an agreement for a woodland licence is "a person or other legal entity that (a) is appointed by a first nation as its representative." I look forward to discussing during committee stage whether the government envisions the wilp is such a structure, because the Gitxsan operate through the hereditary system, through the traditional land base on a wilp-based system.

We know from the new relationship that in the new relationship, there's language about First Nations and recognizing First Nations–owned structures when it comes to governance. So this would be something that needs further definition as far as the people I represent in Stikine.

As well, the Wet'suwet'en have come out and said that they, meaning the hereditary chiefs, have come out and said that the non-profit society structure is not a structure that represents the traditional system. They want, from this point on, to negotiate deals — whether it's tenure deals such as this or others — with the province through their traditional hereditary system which in the Wet'suwet'en system is the wilp system as well.

They've made a very public statement around how the non-profit society under the Society Act is an imposed structure and not part of the cultural structure that grew up over 10,000 years on the land base. So again, who can make these agreements under Bill 13? Will the government be recognizing the wilp structure as an entity that can make these kinds of deals? It's something I'm interested in discussing further.

Another part of the bill that I think we need to talk about more and that I'd like to hear more about is management plans. They're often referred to in the bill under the licensing section. The licence holder under the First Nations woodland licence has to submit a management plan that's approved by the regional manager or the regional manager's designate.

I often wonder, when we hear and see language like this, how this reconciles with consultation. How does it reconcile with accommodation? How does it reconcile with aboriginal title? We know that under the new relationship there's language about the recognition and respect of the laws, the knowledge and the values of First Nations.

If we're trying to create an atmosphere of partnership — I believe the intention of the minister is to try to do that in this bill — then language that says a management plan must be submitted and approved by a designate of the minister, the regional manager, somehow doesn't quite cut it, I believe, when it comes to all the work that's been done on consultation, on accommodation, the legal work that's been done as well as the language in the new relationship.

Again, when we get to further discuss the minute details of this bill, then I will look forward to hearing about that aspect, as well, and offering some suggestions and solutions to amend the bill in that regard.

In addition, there's a section that deals with range issues. It's under the Range Act. This is the way I'm interpreting the bill, and I'm open to being corrected by the minister when we debate further. But the Range Act section, the way I read it, states that if a First Nation takes out a woodlot licence, they "must state that it is a condition of the licence that the first nation comply with the agreement." So these are previous agreements around the range.

Again, I have trouble reconciling that kind of language with the Tsilhqot'in decision, for instance, that really laid out some strong language and strong decision around First Nations aboriginal title and the role that the government plays and the First Nations play on the land base from a legal perspective. Again, that language, "must comply" or "must comply with previous agreements," I believe would fly in the face of more recent legal decisions. We'll see how that plays out when we get further into discussions.

[1715]

I'm going to wrap up here shortly. To say that this is an effort to give some options around area-based tenure, which I must say from the area I represent, which is…. The land is divided up into wilp-based units. The 30,000 square kilometres of Gitxsan traditional territory is divided up into at least 60 wilp-based units. This could make sense for the Gitxsan hereditary governance system, because if you have area-based tenure possibilities, then many of the wilps would be able to apply and have control over the timber in their area.

It also begs the question: well, if that's the case under this bill, then is it also the case under other resources — natural resources, for instance? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources might be interested in how the wilp-based governance system that this bill could recognize might apply under his ministry's mandate as well.

So there are a number of questions around this, and I will be proposing amendments. If it's not clear, I'll propose some amendments to the minister to make this
[ Page 5416 ]
bill better if and when we get some answers around the questions I've posed.

I look forward to the committee stage of debate of this bill so we can get into further detail and do the work that's necessary on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to call for second reading of Bill 13. This is, I think, a significant step forward for First Nations in this province to have a new form of tenure which allows First Nations to fully practise not just forestry practices but other uses of the land base within that tenure framework. It is something that First Nations have been calling for.

Interesting to hear some of the very reasoned comments from members opposite. I think that was a good example of making good use of second reading time as opposed to what we had a few minutes ago on Bill 7, which I think was a complete waste of second reading time. So I appreciate the comments. We will do our work over the next number of days.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prior to the bill coming back for committee stage, we'll make sure that we have the necessary staff and resources to answer the questions that the members opposite have. I'm confident that this bill will be supported by members opposite. I know it will be a significant step forward and supported by First Nations.

With that, I call second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Bell: I move to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Forests and Range (First Nations Woodland Licence) Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 14 for second reading.

Bill 14 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be read a second time now.

This bill, of course, deals with a number of amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act designed to increase and enhance road safety. They can be categorized probably into two or three general areas.

Firstly, there is a stated desire and objective here to reduce the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from alcohol- and drug-related crashes and also to reduce the disproportionate number of accidents and deaths that accrue to motorcyclists. There is a desire by virtue of these amendments to improve existing driver fitness and vehicle impoundment programs.

Lastly, the bill also introduces some amendments to allow seasonal agricultural workers, who are an increasing feature on the landscape, to drive while they work in British Columbia.

[1720]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I'll deal first with the impaired driving provisions of the bill. I'll say at the outset that whilst I appreciate that something as complex and at times complicated as this will require and, I'm sure, receive close scrutiny during the course of not just second reading debate but committee stage debate, I was gratified to hear — conceptually at least — the support offered by members of the opposition.

I think it is fair to say that the objectives being sought in this legislation enjoy fairly widespread support, though I understand there will be a desire to explore in more detail the manner in which we seek to realize those objectives by virtue of the statutory amendments before the House today.

Most people, though they understand and deplore the carnage that accrues as a result of drinking and driving, probably do not think of it in these terms, and that is that impaired driving remains the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. I will emphasize that. It is the number one criminal cause of death. Hundreds of Canadians are killed every year, and thousands are injured, in accidents that I think we could say would be preventable had one or more of the drivers not been consuming alcohol or drugs.

In B.C. upwards of 130-plus individuals and their families last year were impacted in the most terrible of ways by impaired driving. I suppose most disturbing of all is the fact that after a period where society did recognize the horror and react by altering behaviour in a fairly significant way, the trend lines of late have begun to move in the wrong direction. Those accidents and those deaths are going up. There are comprehensive surveys that examine these sorts of things, and they indicate that the number of alcohol-related accidents and deaths is on the increase.

This approach laid out in this legislation will be the toughest in Canada. I'm not sure that is necessarily the only way it should be characterized, but I suppose that is a simple and straightforward means of communicating to people who persist in this behaviour that they are going to feel significant and severe sanction. They will complement the Criminal Code provisions that remain in effect, and that is another point worth emphasizing
[ Page 5417 ]
when we talk about these provisions dealing with drinking and driving.

The Criminal Code provisions exist. They will continue to exist. Whilst police will have additional tools — I think fair to say more immediate, more efficient tools — to deal with impaired driving, with swift and severe penalties available at the roadside, the prospect of facing Criminal Code–related procedures and sanctions does not disappear. In many instances, it will still be the preferred route by which sanctions are brought to bear against drivers.

These amendments will create escalating roadside prohibitions for drivers who have blood alcohol concentration levels in what is termed the warn range between 0.05 and 0.08 as measured by a roadside screening device. The length and duration of those driving prohibitions will be three days for a first incident, seven days for a second and 30 days for any subsequent occurrence. Again, those sanctions relate to measurements within the warn range.

[1725]

There will be a new 90-day roadside prohibition for drivers who have blood alcohol concentration levels in the fail range, and in this country the Criminal Code sets the prohibited range at 0.08.

That sanction will also be available for imposition on those who fail or refuse to provide a breath sample into the device. Citizens will need to be aware that with the passage of these provisions, vehicles may be impounded for all roadside prohibitions. Drivers will need to pay to get those vehicles back, and they will need to pay to get their licence back.

One of the areas that we have spent considerable time examining and that in the aftermath of the tabling of this legislation has attracted some attention deals with the mechanism by which a driver who has been subjected to these provisions may have the decision made by the police officer at the roadside reviewed.

There will be review provisions. The driver affected will have to submit a review application in the prescribed forum and pay a prescribed fee, but that mechanism will exist. The act as amended would allow for prohibitions to be overturned for technical reasons or technical failures. I should say, as well, that there is recognition of the ability for an individual to request a second test from a second instrument where there is a belief that the reading obtained in the first instance is inaccurate.

The amendments align the Motor Vehicle Act with the Criminal Code of Canada by allowing convicted impaired drivers to reduce their suspension periods if they install an interlock device in their vehicle and participate in a remedial program.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That, on the one hand, I suppose, sounds good for a driver that finds himself or herself in these circumstances, but it comes with a significant cost attached. We'll probably have an opportunity in committee to review what the cumulative cost of all these things are. But I don't want to be hesitant in saying that for repeat offenders or individuals who drive in a circumstance where they clearly should not be, the costs can be between $3,000 and $4,000 to get their vehicle and licence back and satisfy the other requirements here — a very costly proposition indeed.

The legislation will be accompanied ultimately by supporting regulations that will specify the amounts of monetary penalties for the three-, seven-, 30- and 90-day roadside suspensions and will provide for the fees for written and oral reviews of prohibitions.

I want to talk for a moment about the vehicle impound program that was established in the late 1990s, if I'm correct. It was designed, I think, with a specific purpose in mind: to replace the notion of incarcerating disqualified drivers with more of a vehicle-based sanction. That involved creating partnerships with towing companies to deliver the program.

The problem that has developed over time is that towing companies have experienced issues. A lot of times a person will lose their vehicle. It will be impounded, and because of the value of the vehicle, they will choose to abandon it. That causes problems for the towing company, for the impound yard. They have difficulty recovering the costs of storing and disposing of the abandoned vehicle.

In the past the only option available has been to increase the fees that towing companies could charge. That tended to be a bit of a vicious circle, because what that did was create an added pressure for abandonment of vehicles.

[1730]

Again, I'm sure we'll have an opportunity when we get to the committee stage to discuss this in a little bit more detail, but I did want to assure members of the House that much thought has been given to how to structure an impound program that responds to that phenomenon but at the same time swiftly and severely imposes the sanction and the inconvenience associated with the loss of use of a vehicle by those people who can't seem to understand that alcohol, drugs and driving do not mix.

To that end, these amendments will introduce vehicle impoundments for offences where research indicates that that impoundment will be effective and lead to behavioural change — not just impaired driving but street racing, stunt driving and excessive speeding. It will adjust the impoundment lengths for unlicensed, prohibited and suspended driving infractions. There are measures here that will close a loophole which allows unlicensed drivers to drive with minimal consequences when caught.

Towing companies will have greater flexibility when disposing of abandoned, impounded vehicles and to
[ Page 5418 ]
somewhat deregulate the process for doing so. We think these provisions will also improve on measures which hold vehicle owners accountable for their debts to towing companies by suspending ICBC licensing, vehicle registration and insurance services for owners who simply abandon their vehicles.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In short, that point at which most citizens have contact with the state around licensing and insurance needs will be used as something of a collection service to address circumstances in which drivers believe that they can avoid the consequences of their actions simply by abandoning a vehicle.

Motorcycle riders remain, sadly, among the most vulnerable road users, not just in this country but really around the world. Those risks have escalated in recent years. Motorcycle fatalities in British Columbia have increased by 78 percent between 1998 and 2007.

Motorcyclists account for about 10 percent of all road fatalities, even though they only make up about 1.5 percent of the insured vehicles on the road. They suffer injury and death far out of proportion to their use of the road. That is particularly so, it appears, for motorcyclists in the 16- to 25-year age group who are the most at risk, with a fatality rate that is 13 times higher than older riders.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

These amendments are, we believe, a reflection of best practices in other jurisdictions. The amendments to the motorcycle provisions will improve road safety, we hope, for motorcyclists in British Columbia through a number of mechanisms.

Motorcycle helmets. Riders will be obliged to wear helmets that meet recognized safety standards. New seat requirements for passengers will be in place, built around some accepted safety provisions. Drivers will be held responsible for ensuring that children, passengers under 16, meet those helmet and seating requirements.

The legislation includes a regulation-making power to specify the power of motorcycles that a class of persons may drive.

That is perhaps a far too oblique way of saying that there is a desire to create regulations that determine just how powerful a machine a new rider can get on, on the day after they have received that licence. We will work with the association that was here just a week ago to ascertain where that line should be drawn. There is clearly a desire to ensure that a 17-year-old with a new licence doesn't get on a machine that is far too powerful for any legitimate use that a new rider could put it to on our highways.

[1735]

The final two areas that I just wanted to touch on quickly relate to driver fitness. It is the superintendent of motor vehicles who is responsible for determining whether or not a driver is medically fit to drive. He or she has the authority to cancel someone's licence who has medical conditions which the superintendent believes pose an unacceptable risk both to that driver and others.

In order to identify at-risk drivers, the act actually requires medical professionals — like optometrists, psychologists, physicians — to report to the superintendent when a patient has a condition that affects driving, has been warned against driving and then continues to drive despite that warning.

Health professionals have in the past expressed concerns with the construct of that requirement and that obligation. They don't actually object, as it turns out, to the mandatory reporting requirement. It tends to be quite the opposite, in fact. Their concern rests in that they believe it is still unclear as to when they are supposed to report and what exactly it is that constitutes a danger with respect to driving. They, of course, find it difficult to monitor whether or not a patient is complying with a warning against driving.

The numbers involved here are quite significant. Over 130,000 drivers a year are reviewed by the superintendent to establish their fitness to drive. That aging demographic that we often speak of in this chamber visits itself upon the superintendent of motor vehicles as well. The caseload and complexity of the reviews is increasing annually as B.C.'s population grows and ages, and human rights decisions require assessment on a case-by-case basis.

So road safety, safety for the driver, safety for the other drivers and ensuring that we are complying with the requirements of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal and other adjudicative bodies lie at the heart of the amendments that are being presented here as well.

In 2005 work began on redeveloping the driver fitness program. These amendments are designed to introduce a model that provides doctors with clear reporting provisions, based on the extensive research that has taken place on the relationship between driving and specific medical impairments.

We hope that this will allow doctors to quickly identify the drivers who are at the greatest risk and bring them to the attention of the superintendent and ensure that, once they have been brought to the attention of the superintendent, they can be properly assessed as soon as possible once a risky medical condition has been identified.

The intention is to focus health care resources on those drivers who are most at risk and to minimize the assessment of drivers whose medical conditions do not actually impair their ability to drive.

Some of this is new. I am told and advised that B.C. will be the first province in Canada to move fully into
[ Page 5419 ]
what is described as an evidence-based approach to assessing a person's medical fitness to drive, so there will undoubtedly need to be a period of assessment as we move through this.

Last two items. What has been described…. I'm not sure it's accurate to call them outdated provisions that allow people to be exempt from wearing seatbelts due to medical conditions. Those provisions are here because the research has shown that there are, apparently, simply no medical conditions which make wearing a seatbelt more dangerous or harmful than the risk of not wearing a seatbelt.

I was a little bit surprised by that, but it is simply the case. The impetus for the change actually came from the medical profession, who are asked to provide the written authorization and frequently pressured by patients to provide the exemption authorization.

[1740]

The medical professions themselves simply say there is no medical evidence to support the suggestion that an exemption is appropriate, and they have specifically endorsed the elimination of these exemptions.

Lastly, the Motor Vehicle Act amendments contained here will allow drivers-workers from visiting countries or provinces to drive in B.C. for up to one year. That is a specific reference to the seasonal agricultural workers program. So I think I should repeat what I've said.

The Motor Vehicle Act presently allows drivers visiting from other countries or provinces to drive in B.C. for up to six months if they have a valid licence in their home jurisdiction. After six months, they are obliged to obtain a B.C. driver's licence.

That has been problematic insofar as seasonal agricultural workers — a federal initiative that B.C. participates in — most particularly workers from Mexico and Commonwealth countries, generally the Caribbean, come to British Columbia and are employed on farms. There's a whole gamut and range of regulations that are in place to ensure that they are afforded all of the proper protections that workers in British Columbia, wherever they come from, deserve and are entitled to.

The problem that has arisen, however, is that some of them are here in a single year for more than six months, and some of these seasonal workers are, as part of their duties, required to be on the road and operate vehicles within the meaning of the act. It is a time-consuming and complicated process for them to obtain their B.C. driver's licence if they are going to be here for, let us say, ten months instead of six months. This amendment addresses that concern by setting out the rules to ensure that people in those circumstances can drive legally and addresses the liability concerns that employers have identified as well.

The bill touches on a range of issues that, broadly speaking, can be characterized as roadside safety. I will end these remarks where I began them, and that is that far too many Canadians and far too many British Columbians are maimed, injured or killed as a result of accidents occurring on our highways. The government believes that this is, broadly speaking, a step in the right direction to try and arrest some of that carnage and save some lives on the highway.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in this debate on what is a very important public policy issue around road safety, involving, I think, some issues that are of a key concern to society as a whole, a particular element of this bill that I think is not only of concern to society but of concern to parents and, finally, dealing with some public policy issues that the member raised about an aging demographic.

I resisted the impulse to ask him to withdraw that remark if he was referring to those of us in this chamber, but it is a fact of life that we do have an aging demographic in this province, which brings with it particular issues, particularly related to the use of motor vehicles in what is an increasingly active, much more active aging population than we've seen in the past.

I would like to touch on a number of those areas in this piece of legislation because I think they are worthy of discussion and comment and also recognize that, as in many pieces of legislation, the devil is in the details, and some of the key questions are in the details. This side of the House fully supports the principle in the bill. There's nothing that we find to be particularly problematic, but I do think there are questions that should be asked and will be asked at committee stage.

[1745]

In essence, what we're doing is moving in concert but parallel to the Criminal Code in terms of how we deal with some of the suspension issues around the roadside suspensions and some of the issues that that will inevitably raise, because as we've seen even with just the Criminal Code in dealing with drinking and driving, every time there is a change, it does generate significant new defence arguments in terms of the legal process and how defence lawyers deal with that. I expect that you will see some of that, certainly, focus on what we're doing here in this legislation.

Having said that, the bottom line is that far too many people in British Columbia are still killed in a terrible roadside carnage due to people who drink and drive. It is unacceptable in today's society that that continues to take place, and it's unacceptable that too many people still don't get the message, that too many people think that it's okay, that it's not really in the same league as some other aspects of the Criminal Code.

The bottom line is this. If you get behind a vehicle and you are drunk and you kill or injure someone, that is no different than if you took a gun and shot someone. You have made a conscious, deliberate decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, and it in effect becomes a weapon, and that is unacceptable.
[ Page 5420 ]

I look back as to where we came from, back to my youth some 30 years ago now, to the late '70s and the early '80s. At that time — and I've said this in this House before — people didn't think twice about going out and drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car and driving somewhere. If you compare the accident rates and death rates between then and now, there's a world of difference. It was when organizations such as MADD, when programs such as CounterAttack really started to take off, that there really became a sea change in public attitudes towards drinking and driving.

Back then if you had a designated driver, well, you were lucky to have a designated driver. People didn't think twice about it. Since then we have, I think, come a long way in this province and in other jurisdictions, but in this province we have come a long way. We have seen over the years those trends going down.

I think one of the biggest changes we have seen is in the attitude of young people. Now when people are going out and they're drinking, there is inevitably a designated driver. There is someone who is responsible who gets people home. You see programs in bars that if you're a designated driver, you don't pay for the soda pop you're drinking. There's a strong societal recognition that is instilled from schools, CounterAttack programs right across the way that drinking and driving is just socially unacceptable.

Despite all that and despite the improvement that's been made, as my colleague the Attorney General said, we are seeing an upward trend, and that's extremely disturbing. I think there are a number of reasons for that upward trend. One, people become inured to messages. There are issues around, I think, some of the CounterAttack programs. Are we investing enough money in those areas to make sure that we're doing it as often as we can?

I think part of it, too, is around the issue in terms of the justice system, in the length of time it takes to deal with things, or a sense that, you know, "We could beat this," or just the evidence that's required to make a conviction stick. Even though .08 is the fail rate, the reality is that it's much closer to 0.1 to actually get a reliable conviction. So the problem becomes, I think, that there's a creeping sense of "You know what? If I'm at .08, I can beat the charge," and I think there's a danger there.

[1750]

What is our hope on this side of the House is that the changes in this particular piece of legislation give those tools to the police so that you can deal with people in that warning range, the .05 to the .08. You know what? It's not just a 24-hour suspension. You are going to lose your licence for the next — on the first offence — three days. The second is seven, and then up to 30. If you're over .08, 90 days. That, I believe, will have a real deterrent effect. People will sit up and take notice on that.

Right now, if you get the 24-hour roadside suspension, it's very easy. You get home. In essence, in many cases, and I've heard comments…. It's almost viewed like a pass, and that's not what it's intended to be. It's almost like a "get out of jail free" card for too many people. There's a sense of, "I'll go home. My car is on the side of the road" — or it's impounded for 24 hours. "I can sleep off my hangover. I'll go down, a bit sheepish, and I'll get my car out. It's fine till the next time."

Well, it's not fine, and that's what this legislation recognizes. There's a much greater inconvenience to you, the individual who has blown over .05, than just, you know: "My car's parked for 24 hours." Now all of a sudden you're having to look at how that impacts for three days or a week.

You're not able to go home. For some people, trying to explain where the car is for 24 hours…. It's very difficult to say if you're a young individual. Never mind the existing penalties that are in place under graduated licensing, for example. But to explain to your parents why you don't have your car for three days or, if you're a spouse, to go home and say where the car is for the next three days or for the next seven days…. That has many more consequences and, we believe, will make people think twice in that regard.

I think those are needed tools. Plus, the message there is that you're not going to be able to sort of put it off through a court system and a justice system and play out over six months, nine months, a year, 18 months — however long it takes to deal with something. Rather, there's a consequence that happens right then and there.

The consequence is immediate. The consequence not only impacts you in terms of your ability and your mobility in terms of your vehicle being impounded, but also — which for many people is the biggest thing of all — it hits you in the pocketbook. It hits you in the pocketbook, and it's not something you're going to be able to get away from. It will hurt, and you will know that.

I think it's important that we get that message out there that these consequences are serious, that they are there running parallel with the Criminal Code. You can still face the Criminal Code penalties, but there will now be this legislation which will, I think, send a very strong deterrent message. So we'll be supporting, as I said, this legislation, but we will have questions.

One of the things I'd like to know is what work has been done in terms of ensuring that this legislation, particularly the sections that deal with the roadside suspensions, is going to be able to stand up to what I think all of us need to recognize will be the inevitable challenges within the court system — that some thought has gone into ensuring that they're able to withstand challenges, which I'm sure will arise. I think that's important.

I'd also like to take this opportunity that as we are introducing this particular legislation and we're dealing with these particular sections…. I also think it's important for the government to recognize that it's not good enough just to have this legislation, but that we have to continue to ensure that we do the preventative side of things — through
[ Page 5421 ]
the CounterAttack programs, through the preventative and education programs in school. That requires ensuring those resources are in place to continue to do that.

[1755]

So you have the message right from the very earliest get-go that in the same way we've had legislation around texting and driving — the use of electronic devices — that education is instilled right from a very early age that drinking and driving is unacceptable and that there are penalties and consequences to that, if you do drink and drive, that are quick. They are immediate, and they will impact on you — both in terms of your ability of being able to drive, but also financially.

I think it's important that those other areas of driver education continue to be funded and that programs are in place that accomplish those needs.

The other area that's important in this particular piece of legislation is around the issue of motorcycles. Again, I think it's worth noting that motorcycles, as the minister said, account for about 1 percent, yet their rate of accidents is significantly higher than the rest of the motoring public, particularly in the 16- to 25-year-old age range — 13 times more likely to have an accident than older drivers. The trend line has been disturbingly on the increase over the last decade, and again, that's something that we need to address.

I think there are a number of reasons for that. One, I think, is the power of some of the bikes themselves. This is something that we want to explore in the legislation: how those sections that deal with that are going to be put in place, how the regulations will work, what consultation has been done with the motorcycling community, what consultation will take place, how that will take place.

You know, there are an awful lot of riders out there, the majority of whom ride responsibly and want to ensure that we have a system of safe regulations in B.C., so they've been watching this carefully.

I've had an awful lot of questions asked in my own constituency, from people who come into my constituency office right to my brother picking up the phone and going: "What's the government doing?" I said: "Look, Bill, I will talk to the government. I'll raise some of these issues in the House." He outlined to me what he…. You know, he's been a bike rider for a long time. Some of the problems that he sees will, hopefully, be addressed in the legislation, and I think some of them are, particularly around the power size of bikes.

I think at this point I'd like to just, for the House, share — not an anecdote — something that I witnessed. It was several years ago now, but I have never forgotten it, and I don't think I ever will. I was at the intersection of Cardero and Robson streets in Vancouver behind a black Mercedes-Benz. I can tell you literally everything. That's how etched in my mind what took place.

The light was red. It turned, and the Mercedes started a left turn just as a rocket bike, as they are referred to, came down the hill on Robson at a high rate of speed. It was fluorescent green, and clearly, it was driven by a young guy. It smashed into that black Mercedes. That young fellow was catapulted into the air and went headfirst straight up and over the trolley lines which the trolley buses use in Vancouver.

He had a helmet on, and he came down on his head and lay there in the middle of the intersection. If one can be lucky in a situation like that, it was the fact that there was an ambulance on the way up the street that was literally seconds away and was on the scene almost immediately.

I have no idea whether that individual survived or not, but what I do know is that it was a very high-powered performance bike and, clearly, the person driving it was a young individual.

That's the age group that sees the highest rate of accidents and sees the highest rate of deaths. I think it's important that we have in place regulations that keep up with the change — not just, I think, in technology but in the power of some of the bikes that are on the road, particularly when those bikes, in many cases, are marketed to a particular age group and are marketed with a particular lifestyle and imagery taking place.

[1800]

We're all familiar with the tragic situation that happened a few years ago in New Brunswick. A promising young hockey player had just bought the bike literally the day or a couple of days before and was behind a vehicle and smashed into an oncoming vehicle — an extremely powerful bike.

Things like education, things like training are key and important and need to be in place. This legislation, I think, has some important changes in it that, hopefully, will help to reduce the carnage in that particular area.

The other area the minister touched on that I know this legislation deals with is around the issue of helmets. This, as I have come to realize, is one of the more controversial issues of this particular piece of legislation. I know it was one of the ones that certainly got some of my biking friends on the phone to me, including my brother.

They are concerned about what these changes and rules mean. They accept that changes will be coming, but they want to know what they mean, and that's one of those issues that we can explore further in committee stage in this legislation, particularly around the definition of what a DOT-approved helmet is. There is a range of opinion out there.

I know one of the things, from the comments that the minister has made and the government has made, is dealing with the issue of the beanie helmets and replacing them with a DOT helmet. I've already had a lot of comments, as I said, from my friends and my brother around the issue of the full-face helmet and a sense that the full-face helmet is sometimes an impediment on a
[ Page 5422 ]
bike because it does obscure your vision and make it more difficult. But if the issue is around DOT-approved and whether that allows for more visual aspects in the type of helmet that is allowed, again, I think there is a broader willingness and acceptance in that regard.

I look forward to the committee stage on the bill to be able to explore those particular issues more thoroughly so that people get a better understanding of how it will work and impact them. But the bottom line is what government is concerned about and the opposition is concerned about — reducing the carnage on our roads and how we do that. I'm pleased to hear that the issue of consultation has been raised. Again, that's something we'll be asking questions about, and we look forward to exploring how that consultation will take place.

The final issue that I want to talk about before I take my seat — and this is perhaps one that I think is a personal beef of mine — is the issue of the seatbelts. This legislation does away with medical reasons for not being able to wear seatbelts, and I have to say it's long overdue. I for the life of me cannot think of a single reason or for what medical condition you could say: "Oh, I don't wear a seatbelt because…. No, no, no. I have a medical condition, and I can't wear seatbelts."

The only people that that applies to are the type of people that you find in flyover states in the U.S. and that go to tea bag conventions. There is a mindset and a mentality that seems to think: "You know what? I'm different. I don't need to wear a seatbelt. I can do whatever I want."

The bottom line is that seatbelts save lives. They work. More importantly, I think it's reflective, sometimes, of this approach that: "You know what…?" I understand where they're coming from, but it is not valid.

If I sound a little sort of strident on this, there's good reason, because too often what happens is that the types of situations or the types of individuals that do that are quite willing to put their own life in danger. But too often they put the lives of other people, and in particular children, in danger by this sense of: "I don't have to wear a seatbelt, because I have a medical condition." The reality is they don't want to wear a seatbelt, and usually, the other people in the car aren't wearing seatbelts either.

[1805]

I think that these particular sections are long overdue. They have the support of both sides of the House and the medical community, which I think is great. For those people who think that this is a bit too much of the hand of Big Brother or big government, the reality is that they don't want to wear a seatbelt. But they'll be the first in line to say: "I need my health care." They'll be the first in line, if they've been injured, demanding that they get their physio, that they get taken care of by a health care system.

I think it's only reasonable for the public to say: "You know what? Yes, you're going to get all those things, but it's perfectly reasonable for us as a society to say you'll wear a seatbelt."

Hon. Speaker, with those few comments, I will take my place, other than to say we have a few more speakers, and this legislation does have the support of this side of the House. But there will be some areas that we will want to canvass in committee stage, which I think is the appropriate thing to do, to ensure that this legislation not only does what has been spelled out in second reading, but that we ensure the community, whether it's the motorcycling community fully….

They understand, too, that we recognize some of their concerns and that we can provide answers to the questions they have in the committee stage so that we can get, hopefully, an increased broader base of support for this particular piece of legislation. With that, I will take my seat and hear what other colleagues have to say.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and speak more or less in favour of Bill 14. I want to start where I was going to end in the interests of time, because I'm not sure I'll get through my remarks before I get to the motorcycle helmet section of this bill.

Of course, I'm turning my gaze on my colleague across the way, and I'm hopeful that he will have an opportunity to participate in the debate and speak for all of us about how he plans to deal with the motorcycle helmet issue into the future. I know he's spoken to me about it and spoken publicly about it. It will be interesting to see how he votes on this when it comes to committee stage.

I want to start by telling a couple of stories. I lived in Australia in the 1980s, and they went through a process of introducing a very aggressive road safety initiative that included reducing the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05. Of course, the Australians like to have their beers. They like to enjoy a glass now and again, so a very aggressive ad campaign was launched at that time. I'll never forget it because I was a young man, and the Aussies tend to be more brash and outspoken than we pleasant and staid Canadians.

The campaign was: "Don't be a rat bag. If you're going to drink, don't drive."That stuck with me, now coming on to almost 30 years. Don't be a rat bag. I'm certain, hon. Speaker, that that's not parliamentary, but I'm speaking to an advertising campaign in another jurisdiction. So I want to thank you for allowing me to get that on the record, because it's something that my spouse and I have lived with since we left Australia. It was something we also passed on to our kids.

It was quite tragic that seven years ago, my son and I were hit at an intersection in my community by a drunk driver. My son, after we got through the shock of being slammed into by another vehicle, said: "Do you think he's a rat bag, Dad?" He was 11 years old, and it stuck with him. Now he's 20, and he's gone through the graduated driving program. It took him a long time to go in
[ Page 5423 ]
and write his exam because of the horror of that experience. Although I have stayed fairly true to the "don't be a rat bag," I haven't had a drink and driven my vehicle.

Once you've been hit by someone, hon. Speaker and colleagues — and I'm sure it's happened to others in this House — it changes your perspective on this issue. It's no longer that I have a right to drive on the roads of British Columbia. It's a privilege and honour to do that, and there are laws. It's our role and function in this place to set those laws of what is appropriate and acceptable behaviour.

I am concerned, however, about some of the escalating penalties that are laid out in this act. As our critic has said, I'm looking forward, as well, to committee stage debate. The Attorney General has said in the public press that he's confident that this legislation will withstand a challenge. I'm hopeful that he's correct, and I'm sure that in committee stage he'll be able to expand upon why he believes that's the case and why he is confident that the legislation and administrative penalties at the provincial level will not in some way affect federal authority in this area.

[1810]

I'm also a little bit concerned that if provinces take this lead and follow the course that the Attorney has set out, and one that I support, it may discourage the federal government from moving more aggressively in this area.

As time goes by, and again, in my instance, having the vivid memory of this guy running into us…. He blew .31. Can you imagine that? I don't know how he got the key. He should have bought a lottery ticket rather than getting into his car, because the chances of him ever getting the key back in the ignition in that state is astronomical. The probability is very, very high that he will never be able to do that.

My brother was a Victoria firefighter for 35 years, and they had this term. When you were dead drunk, they called you a "35," because your body cannot absorb any more alcohol into the blood than .35. When I told him that this guy had blown .31, he said: "Two more drinks and he would have been dead." He would have avoided running into us and potentially avoided a lot of problems down the road.

But it's that type of graphic example of abuse that makes groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which I support and have certainly supported since I was faced with an incident involving a drunk driver…. It's those grotesque examples that make incremental changes in administrative law positive to those who hear it at first blush, but we also have to take into account the issues of civil liberties.

I have seen correspondence. I know that the Attorney and members on the other side will have received correspondence from groups in the community that are concerned that we are giving to the police more power than they care to exercise, potentially, and removing from the courts a right to a fair trial and the consequences that will flow from that. These are concerns that I think all members share, and I think that we have to be mindful of that.

I know that when we get to committee and my colleague from Port Coquitlam and the Attorney are going back and forth clause by clause, we'll get a thorough understanding and grounding in why government has drafted the legislation the way they have, why they've chosen to have escalating penalties for a limit that is under the Criminal Code and why they're giving more power to police and taking power away from the courts.

Again, as a policy wonk wrapped in a populist wrapper, I can understand and appreciate that this would appeal to those who have not seen justice through the courts, but we have to be mindful always of every example, not just the example that offends. We need consequences for our actions. We need to have deterrents in place, effective deterrents.

When I worked in government there were significant traffic safety initiatives that were launched by the government in the 1990s. Very few of them were supported by those on the other side. I am pleased to see a shift and a sea change, in fact, in traffic safety initiatives from the government, and this bill is a step in that direction.

I'm hopeful that there will be more to come. I'm hopeful that the Attorney and the Minister of Transportation will be able to work together and come up with an even more aggressive and positive traffic safety initiative as we move through the rest of this mandate.

I believe that as we get an increasing number of people onto our roadways, increasing conflicts and tensions with gridlock and road rage and all these other issues, we need to have a comprehensive traffic safety initiative led by the province, supported by both sides of the House and, importantly, supported by the courts, supported by the officers of the courts, supported by civil liberties organizations and others.

These are not insignificant issues. I know. I've had calls. I've talked to some of my colleagues. The notion of escalating roadside penalties for a couple of beers, well below…. I mean, I could probably put away more than most people because of my size, but for smaller people, one or two drinks watching a hockey game over dinner and you may well be given severe penalties as a result.

I'm not certain how we come to making the shift from .08 to .05. As I said, the Australians just did it in one fell swoop. It was a federal initiative. It was one that they did quickly and swiftly, and I believe over time it was accepted by the general population. I think that on the surface, again, this legislation will be supported by the majority. But there are bear traps in it, and the Attorney is well aware of those.

I know also from my time in government that when you're working with Leg. counsel and you're drafting
[ Page 5424 ]
legislation, bringing it to your caucus, bringing it to the chamber for debate, you're mindful that there are challenges.

[1815]

There are little glitches along the way. Our job and function on this side of the House is not to just take those populist ideas that are appealing at the moment at face value and say that we support them, as we've done today. It's to burrow down and ensure that civil liberties are protected, that the police are given powers they're able to handle and distribute evenly and that the courts are not circumvented and, as I said, that these provincial administrative schemes do not discourage federal activity.

I'm hopeful, also, that the consequences for actions, the issues that my colleague from Port Coquitlam talked about — education programs in the schools, ensuring that the public understands that these are not rights; these are privileges…. You can't just load up on a six-pack and then hop in your vehicle. You can't do it.

These public roadways belong to the public. They don't belong to belligerent people who've had too much to drink, taking their lives and the lives of other citizens in their hands. On that front, I support the government, and I do that enthusiastically.

I believe that most thinking people…. I see the member for Nanaimo, a thinking person and also an officer of the court. He'll have his views on this matter. I know that he will make his case known and, I think, burrow down in some detail with the Attorney when third reading or committee stage comes up.

I do want to agree that this is a step in the right direction. We need to encourage people to be responsible for themselves, be responsible for their behaviour. You can have a beer if you're watching the hockey game. If you have two beers, you might want to think about calling a cab. If you have three beers, you should not be getting into your car.

We had, I think, a vigorous and friendly debate over hand-held devices in cars and automobiles just before the Olympic break. I think that for all of us, it was a "forgive me, Speaker, for I have sinned," and we talked about our abuses of hand-held devices while we're driving.

I'm hopeful that all members of this House, all 85 of us, will stand in unison and support this bill, provided that the Attorney can give the assurances in committee stage to some of the issues that have been raised in the public press. The minister's aware of them, and members on that side of the House will be aware of them. I'm hopeful he'll have those answers. I'm sure that he'll be armed with some of the best briefing notes government can write.

With that, again I'll look to my colleague from the other side with the motorcycle helmet issue, and encourage him to contemplate and reflect upon his dome there and try to protect it as best he can when he takes to the roadways in the north country and even down here in the south.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to stand and speak about Bill 14, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I'm pleased that my colleagues have both adequately expressed general support for this bill and have highlighted some concerns. I think it's our responsibility in opposition to point out some of the issues that need to be addressed in order for this to meet everyone's satisfaction.

I start by saying that I have worked in crime prevention for a long time in previous work. I was part of setting up the first Students Against Driving Drunk in the Northwest Territories. I always found it interesting to make the distinction between MADD and SADD. One was Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Students Against Driving Drunk.

I think that this slight subtle difference between the two illustrates where I think the biggest problem lies with this legislation, and that is: will it be effective? Will it actually accomplish what it purports to suggest it's going to accomplish?

We all know that penalties are not the primary determinant of whether people commit offences. Laws do not stop people from doing stupid things. What really we want to do as a society is reduce the horrible impact of irresponsible and illegal behaviour on our communities. That irresponsible behaviour — it's best if we can prevent it with effective preventative tools, and I believe that legislation is not really a good crime prevention tool.

However, that being said, one can look at this legislation and say, "Well, how could you disagree with it?" — because what we really want to do is protect people from injury and death. Certainly, that's a laudable goal. My goal would be to do so in a way that's effective, in a way that actually puts the resources necessary into this kind of initiative.

[1820]

My concerns are obviously about…. You know, many people have died as a result of drinking drivers. Many, many people have died and have been injured as a result — permanently injured. Families have been devastated. I've met families who have been devastated by the actions of drunk drivers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I also understand that many people have defended civil liberties to the death. People have fought and have gained the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, from mistreatment from authority, and I think that is a value that requires defending. Civil liberties require our constant defence.

To ignore the importance of civil liberties because of an issue that is clearly one that garners emotional and often very serious and tragic consequences…. I believe
[ Page 5425 ]
that we need to make sure that we do discuss legislation in a dispassionate way and actually figure out if what we're doing is going to be effective or not.

Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of debate.

N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

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

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are here today to assist me. With me today are Deputy Minister James Gorman, Superintendent of Achievement Rick Davis and Assistant Deputy Minister Keith Miller.

N. Macdonald: I really just have one question. Parents have phoned me from Malakwa, which is a small community near Sicamous, asking to raise with the minister their concern about the closing of their community elementary school. Rhona Martin has represented the community for many years. She's expressed the community's deep concern about what's going on there.

As the minister will be aware, public schools are disappearing from one community after another. In my area, Columbia River–Revelstoke, we lost nine schools, many of them in small communities where they were the sole school. As the minister probably knows, education still continues in the community, often with home-schooling or with other ad hoc sorts of setups for the children to have to manage through, often without access to the facilities that the public built there.

The question is: does the minister acknowledge the damage done to communities when the sole school is closed, and why is there no effective effort to retain these small and important community schools?

[1440]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, we understand that closure of a school, regardless of where the school is, is very difficult. It's a very difficult decision for a school district to make.

In some cases, however — in the case of very small schools with small enrolments — one of the factors the school district is taking into consideration is that sometimes educational programs are actually no longer viable. There are such small numbers of students that they aren't able to provide the kind of educational experience for the students that they wish to. That's true in some cases.

In all cases, though, in the districts that have rural schools there are a number of supplements that are in place for precisely the reason that they face challenges that urban centres do not face. In the case of this school district, they actually receive over $4 million annually on top of the other grants that they receive. That is specifically for unique district factors, which would include things like a small community supplement which goes directly to the smaller communities.

A district like this one that has experienced an almost 25 percent enrolment decline in the last ten years alone also has received funding protection. Year over year when their enrolment declines, they have some buffering from that fact. There are a number of things that we actually have done and continue to do to acknowledge the challenges that districts like this one are facing.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister and the staff for the opportunity to raise a couple of questions. It has been brought to my attention in Vancouver-Kensington…. It's a very diverse constituency. In terms of the importance of education, obviously, as providing a foundation for all children regardless of their background — an opportunity for them to prosper and also succeed later in life — it's very important that they have access to the education system. It has been raised as a concern to me, particularly for new immigrants coming in and having the ability to integrate into the education system.

I was wondering if the minister could explain to me the broad policy framework you have in terms of ensuring that our education system adopts an equity agenda that deals comprehensively with systemic issues of racism and those barriers, in terms of promoting the
[ Page 5426 ]
integration and supporting the participation of students from all walks of life, specifically and also broadly, and in terms of a policy framework that also addresses issues of barriers such as homophobia and discrimination.

[1445]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: You've asked a number of different questions within your question, so let me start by talking about what's available for new immigrants — those new to Canada, including refugees.

One of the things that's in place through a partnership with the federal government is settlement workers in schools. They work primarily with refugees, but in some cases they work with other new immigrants to Canada as well. In 2009-10 this program received $9.2 million from government, which went to school boards that are responsible for significant numbers of new students.

There also was a change in the 2008-09 school year. In previous years the funding came at the beginning of the year, but in 2008-09 it was recognized that refugees can come to Canada at any time. Midyear funding began so that school districts, if they had new Canadians later in the year after the initial funding had flowed, would have access to further funding. In 2008-09 that was $346,000 of additional funding that otherwise wouldn't have gone.

We have funding for ESL. In 2009-10 that was approximately $67.9 million. That funding per pupil is actually going up this year. Last year the per-pupil grant was $1,174. Next year, in the 2010-11 year, it will be $1,340 for ESL students.

The other issues you raised about things such as racism. Each school district is required to have, and each of them does, a code of conduct. Each school does as well. These are in place.

There has also been considerable changing of the curriculum over time. There's, for example, a course called social justice 12. The concepts about zero tolerance for discrimination and racism, and the other issues that you've raised, are interwoven into the kindergarten-to-grade-12 curriculum now in a number of different ways.

Those are some of the things that would address the things that you have raised.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister for your responses. Just to follow up on that a little bit more, I've been meeting with parents and students and teachers in my area of Vancouver-Kensington and from our school district and hearing firsthand about the challenges, particularly of new immigrants. These are the stories coming forward in terms of their transitioning into the school system.

One story that I've heard from one of the programs is…. The concern is around the ability of new students who are new to Canada, who don't speak English as their first language, and the importance of them being able to transition into the school system at the time that they go in.

[1450]

The problem that arises is that if they don't have adequate access to resources or support in terms of language or different aspects of their involvement in school, there's the problem of them dropping out, with the dropout rate.

Do you have reports on the graduation rates in British Columbia for new immigrants and also generally for different multicultural groups? I attended a forum with the Learning Disabilities Association, and there was a report that was commissioned by the ministry with the University of British Columbia. I'm still waiting for that report to be released.

I'm wondering if you have research or if you have access to documents that have some of that data and some of that information in terms of the graduation rates and success of graduation rates for different immigrant groups and which also give a bit of a demographic picture around graduation rates.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have the data exactly the way that you have asked about. It's not separated out specifically in a way that we would be able to identify new Canadians, immigrants from other countries. We have data, obviously, for the province as a whole, and we have completion rate data for our aboriginal students. The only other one that we track is ESL students who actually out-perform the average British Columbian.

But the ESL would encompass, in some cases, Canadian-born students who had been raised in a family where English wasn't spoken, so it isn't exactly what you're looking for and certainly not separated out by which culture or country a person would come from.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. I know that there was a report. I don't have the name of the report. Maybe I can follow it up, as well, with the UBC professor. If I understand his presentation, it was commissioned by…. He made the presentation to the Vancouver school board, and I understood that maybe it was partly sponsored by the Education Ministry.

Maybe I can follow up with him and contact your office in terms of if that report is available or if I can get a copy of it once it becomes available. That would be great, because I also hear anecdotal stories from my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington and from talking with parents and teachers in the schools. But I also like to feel that I have an objective basis in terms of having these discussions and of looking at trying to propose alternatives or improvements to our current system.

I do have a concern in terms of the integration of students from different multicultural backgrounds. Certainly, one of my concerns is with….

[1455]
[ Page 5427 ]

There are a number of multicultural workers who have lost their jobs in Vancouver with the funding cuts. That's being raised to my office as a concern, particularly in terms of the lack of support from students from different multicultural backgrounds and in terms of being able to support them and their families and to provide them with the best outcomes in the education system. That's a concern that I have as well. Maybe if you could address that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're just conferring about the report you're talking about. We don't exactly know what the report is, but we're actually trying to get ministry staff to find out, because it seems like somebody who's not with us just now actually does know about it. We'll make an effort to get that report and make it available to you if it is humanly possible.

With respect to the issue you raised about Vancouver's budget-making process and the decisions they've made around multicultural workers, what I would say, just generally, is that it is up to the individual school board — in this case, Vancouver — to make decisions about how they will manage their budget.

This is a school district that I know you are aware has 3,000 fewer students than it did ten years ago, a significant enrolment decline in Vancouver. But they have had increases in their funding each and every year in the last ten years.

They're making decisions about how they will manage within that budget, and they are absolutely entitled to do that. I know that they are considering their budget for this year. In some cases in the past, workers have received layoff notices, but in fact, they actually haven't been laid off. In the end, they've been able to find ways of maintaining employment for some workers. I suppose that is a possibility, but in the end, they do have the autonomy to make decisions about where they will place their funding.

I do think it's important to acknowledge that the funding in Vancouver, though, has not been cut. It has been increased every single year for the last ten years.

M. Elmore: This is my last question in terms of the…. It's been reported that with the changing demographics in British Columbia — certainly focused within the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver — projecting to 2031, I believe it is, we're going to be seeing increasing numbers of…. I believe over 50 percent, in terms of our population, is going to be consisting of folks from racially visible backgrounds and this kind of thing, really showing the diversity of our province, focused primarily in urban centres.

[1500]

I'm just wondering, given that reality and that changing situation, how the ministry is adapting to that and also, in terms of looking forward and being proactive, adjusting for that to ensure that that's a reality that is planned and expected in terms of being able to meet the education needs of such a diverse and changing population.

[1505]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are a number of areas that I think would go towards addressing the question that you had. First of all, there is the ESL programming, which we've already talked about.

There also has been increasing effort to provide parental choice, and when I speak of that, certainly some new Canadians are very keen to take advantage of things like some of our independent schools where they can go to a school that addresses their culture.

Also, there's flexibility in some of the programs. There's distance learning, which in some cases is really appreciated as a way of getting through the education system faster. There are some new language programs. For example, there will be Mandarin immersion starting in at least one of the districts this fall.

Then there's also something called the diversity framework, which is actually woven through the entire curriculum. It is B.C. performance standards for social responsibility and deals with valuing diversity. That's not only that social justice 12 course that I mentioned, but it's actually interwoven through the entire curriculum.

There are examples that a teacher could use that would help with this diversity and acknowledgment and valuing diversity. It could be anything from math to social studies to music. In any one of those areas there would be curriculum. There would be things that a teacher could draw on so that students are learning it all the time. It's not isolated to a particular course or a particular year in school.

M. Mungall: My issue is around neighbourhood learning centres. The provincial government has been putting funding towards the capital side of developing neighbourhood learning centres. However, the neighbourhood learning centres….

The concept behind this isn't new at all. In fact, a lot of schools and school districts throughout the province, I'm sure, once they were hit with cutbacks early on in the B.C. Liberal term, started to look at how they could use their assets and started to consolidate several programs into what used to be — for instance, in my consistency — an elementary school. They essentially created a learning hub, which, by all definitions…. When I look at the definitions for a neighbourhood learning centre, I see an incredible amount of parallel.

What's happening right now in my constituency is around the Creston Education Centre. The school district is in a situation where they are looking to ensure that they don't have a deficit budget, so they're looking to make some cutbacks. One of the cutbacks they're looking at is closing the Creston Education Centre, which is
[ Page 5428 ]
just one of these neighbourhood learning centres, so to speak, that came about prior to 2005.

Without the neighbourhood learning centre, we would be losing…. Programs like Homelinks would be reallocated to different parts of the district in that area. We'd also be losing this hub that brings a lot of programs together for the benefit of the entire community.

One of my questions is on the operational side for a neighbourhood learning centre. You've done the capital, but what about operational? Is there any opportunity for some operational funding for a neighbourhood learning centre?

[1510]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question. I first wanted to just mention about the funding issue — that in the case of this school district, their funding has actually increased annually. Funding has increased 11.8 percent in the last ten years. It's been a steady increase, and their enrolment has declined substantially during that same amount of time. Their per-pupil funding is actually up 40 percent in that ten-year time frame, so there never has been a reduction in funding.

With respect to neighbourhood learning centres, you're absolutely right. Although we have the nomenclature, there are a number of districts all around the province that were looking at their underutilized school space and being creative with it and bringing in other partners. It's been all kinds of different partners, and this has been happening for many years because many of the districts found that they had empty spaces and they wanted to use that space better.

What has happened when the partners come in to share the spaces is that those partners also bring operational dollars with them. It was never the intent of the Ministry of Education to actually provide operational funding for the other partners. What happens is that a municipal service might come in or a health service or someone from Ministry of Children and Family Development or another community partner — a day care, a seniors centre — and they bring with them their operations funding. So the Ministry of Education continues to provide the operation funding for education, which has gone up year over year, but not providing….

That wasn't our intent, whether it was an existing model or whether it's one of the new neighbourhood learning centres. We certainly do provide in the new neighbourhood learning centres increased space capacity so that these partners can come in, but it was never our intent, nor would it be in the future, to provide operation funding for the other partners.

M. Mungall: Well, let me clarify — because it seems that maybe I wasn't clear enough for the minister — that all the programs that are currently in the Creston Education Centre are education-based programs. They are not programs coming from a different ministry — perhaps the Ministry of Children and Families. However, they're education-based programs such as StrongStart and so on and are very valued by the community. They're concerned that they're going to lose them once this hub may close because of what is chronic underfunding.

Now, the minister talked about increased funding over several years to school district 8, but what we're seeing here and what we're seeing across the province is that increased costs are not being matched by funding from the province. Then it's forcing these school districts to go into a situation of potentially closing valuable services such as this neighbourhood learning centre.

Particularly in my school district, school district 8, what has really caused them to look at this — and I have spoken with the chair of the school district — to look at possibly closing the Creston Education Centre, were the shortfalls that resulted from the annual facilities grant cut last year. So bringing that forward to this year, which is what they've had to do, they are now looking at closing the Creston Education Centre.

[1515]

Again, to the minister, can she reply…? Is one of the possibilities operational funding for neighbourhood learning centres? Like I said, the Creston Education Centre completely falls within every definition that I can possibly find of a neighbourhood learning centre. Will there be operational funding for neighbourhood learning centres, whether it's the Creston Education Centre or perhaps neighbourhood learning centres that are getting capital funding now?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The annual facilities grant is very specific targeted funding, and it is for maintenance of school facilities. It's for things like putting on a new roof or those kinds of things. It's very specifically for that. Had the annual facilities grant in this case been used for operations, that actually would not be appropriate. So that annual facilities grant funding, just to be really clear — that's what it's for.

In the case of this district, in the last ten years enrolment in the district is down by 20.6 percent. The funding per pupil is actually, when I looked back at my notes, up 41 percent. It's up now to $9,824.

[1520]

The per-pupil funding that goes to the district for each of their students is the operations funding. So there has been a substantial increase in that funding for this district. But with the enrolment decline, I expect that the school district is now looking at how they will best meet the education needs of students in that district. In some cases, they may make a decision that they'll use a facility differently or even, in some cases, close the facility with that many fewer students.

S. Chandra Herbert: The question I've got is the same question that I asked…. Well, I've got a couple
[ Page 5429 ]
of questions, but I raised this with the minister or the standing-in minister last time around codes of conduct in our school districts. That was over six months ago — still haven't really got a good response.

I raised it with the minister a month and a half ago. I know at the time there'd been a commitment to get a letter to myself in relation to codes of conduct in schools and specifically — for those at home who might not know what I'm talking about — codes of conduct that would happen in every school district, which state very clearly what would be discrimination and things under the Human Rights Code. Specifically, I know there's been a lot of attention focused by gay and lesbian students.

So the question. We know of eight school districts that have codes of conduct, but I'm curious if the minister can tell me if the rest of the school districts in B.C. have those codes of conduct in place or how soon they will.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ministry actually recently carried out and concluded a survey of all the school districts to ensure that they are in fact complying with the legislation, because the legislation states that every district would have a code of conduct and that every school would.

There will be a report coming out shortly that will summarize the findings of this survey of the superintendents, but what we have found is that all of the school districts are reporting to us that each school in their district does have a code of conduct in place today.

S. Chandra Herbert: Now, the code of conduct. I know there's a code of conduct, but some codes of conduct do not specifically state grounds of discrimination or state things like "homophobia is not acceptable" and those kinds of things. That's been a problem before, where everybody can say: "Well, we're against discrimination." But what would that actually look like, and what are the grounds for discrimination?

[1525]

So I'm just curious. Do those codes of conduct actually have the grounds of discrimination, the information from the Human Rights Code, in there explicitly stated? I believe that was the ministerial directive some time ago, probably two years ago. I'd be interested in an answer on that.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ministerial order in question references the Human Rights Code. In each case, with the codes of conduct in the district…. The codes make it clear that violation of the prohibited grounds in the Human Rights Code are not permitted under the code of conduct. That's the case for each of the school districts.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I look forward to seeing the report that the minister referenced. Hopefully, we can get that soon, because this issue around homophobia and discrimination continues to be a problem in schools all across the province.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

A question regarding Little Flower Academy. I've got some interest from people because of the concerns of the teacher Lisa Reimer, a lesbian parent who, according to the press release that I read, was fired from Little Flower Academy as a music teacher. A lot of concern was raised publicly about that. It was parents who pushed her out, I guess. That was the suggestion.

[1530]

I'm just curious if the minister can provide us an update on what's happening in that matter.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has asked a question about Little Flower Academy that was in the news a while back. At the time, when the first information came out, we actually did contact the school.

What became clear from our discussions with the school is that the facts are actually in dispute. While on the one hand the teacher stated that she had been fired, the school stated that, in fact, she hadn't been fired and that her employment continued.

At any rate, there is dispute between the employee and the employer, and there are a number of options open to the teacher. As far as I'm aware, she's not currently thinking of pursuing them.

Just speaking generally, if at any time any employee believes that they've been discriminated against on any grounds and that the human rights legislation has been violated, they do have a number of different things that they can do in terms of pursuing it. Those choices are open to this teacher, and they would be open to anyone if they believed that their rights had been violated.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know she's a music teacher. I would think it would be very difficult to teach music when you're required to stay at home and are not able to come into the classroom, as has been described by Little Flower Academy as well as the teacher.

It doesn't make any sense to me that we would allow such a thing to continue to stand in our province today — somebody who, as far as I can tell, was told to stay home and not to teach the kids because some parents had concern that her gayness might rub off on them, that she might be teaching the lifestyle or something like that. That case does draw a lot of interest, I think, because of what looks to be pretty clear inequality.

Maybe speaking more generally — since I know the minister probably won't want to talk about the specifics of this case, as she stated that the facts are disputed — what strings or requirements are attached to provincial money going to the funding of religious schools
[ Page 5430 ]
and private schools? I ask specifically: are the schools required to ensure that children, should they come out as gay or lesbian, would be allowed to be who they are and that they cannot be discriminated against? Are they required that their teachers also could not be discriminated against in that case?

[1535]

Then, more specifically…. I know the minister was talking about curriculum earlier and about how you could be in math class and be learning about racism or something like that, or you could be in social studies and learning about homophobia. It's integrated in all the curriculum.

Is that the same for private schools — that they would have to offer a social justice 12, or they would have to offer their children a forum where they could understand that being gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered is completely acceptable and should be celebrated?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The independent schools are governed by the Independent School Act. It's a lengthy act, which I won't completely recite here. Just to give you a few examples of what's required in order for provincial funding to go to an independent school: they have to teach the prescribed learning outcomes that we have, they have to employ B.C.-certified teachers, and they are subject to inspections. So the independent schools are inspected from time to time. Those are all some of the things which need to happen in order for them to receive provincial funding.

In terms of the employers — that is to say, the independent schools — they're required to abide by legislation that is in existence, and that would include the human rights legislation.

With respect to courses like social justice 12, that's an elective course in the public system as well. It certainly can be offered and is offered, I think, in some of the independent schools. It's not offered in all of them.

In terms of the other curriculum, as far as the prescribed learning outcomes include that area of curriculum, it would be the responsibility of these schools to meet those as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just know that some schools will offer curriculum in one way, and some will offer it in another way. I understand that learning outcomes are kind of the guide in terms of how a teacher might formulate their lesson plan.

[1540]

But the question is: are these private schools required to teach their students, at some set along the way, what is acceptable in terms of, you know, how we treat each other and, more specifically, that it is not acceptable to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation? Is that specifically taught? Is there a way that the ministry can make sure that that provision is taught in all schools in B.C. that receive public funding?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What is universal between the independent schools and the public schools is the idea that we have prescribed learning outcomes and that the expectation is that they will be taught.

The member is quite correct. The ways that they might be taught and the ways that they're integrated into the curriculum could be very different from school to school. I think that would likely be the case within the public school system as well, that there are many different ways of achieving the outcomes but that the expectation is that they'll be achieved.

Certainly within that, there is the idea that teaching will include tolerance of diversity and acceptance of differences, however that is addressed within the teaching that is happening — whether it's an independent school or whether it's a public school.

S. Chandra Herbert: The answer is a nice answer, I think, on paper. I guess my concern is that it's not always followed, especially when we talk about teaching of tolerance. I don't know how many of us want to be tolerated. I would say that probably more of us would like to be accepted.

[1545]

I think being explicit in what that looks like is very important. Saying we should appreciate diversity is a good thing, but I think that unless we actually get to the root of what lies in each of our diversities, it's very possible to ignore some of it and to not realize that who you are and where you've come from needs to be accepted and celebrated.

The question really is…. I guess I didn't get an answer in terms of explicit teachings — explicit — and that concerns me, because I know that there are a number of institutions which still believe that gay and lesbian people shouldn't exist, that they are somehow just a choice. I know that a number of religious institutions still follow that quite strongly. That's the reason I had the concern.

I was hoping that we might get an explicit commitment from organizations that it would be taught that we should be explicitly supporting people in their sexual orientation, different racial backgrounds, different gender backgrounds, etc. I know we would not stand for it, in this day and age, if somebody was fired or laid off or put down if they were of a different colour or a different racial background or if you were put down because you were a lesbian or a man or….

Yet the Little Flower Academy discussion continues. I'm curious what further steps the ministry has taken in the Little Flower Academy discussion, if instead of just assessing, "Well, one person says one thing; one says another," there have been actual steps taken to ensure that that academy understands that teachers — whether they be lesbian, gay, black, white, whatever — would have and should have the right to be able to teach there. So what further steps have been taken?
[ Page 5431 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to Little Flower Academy, the ministry did obtain as much information as we could at the time, certainly, from the school. It became clear to us that there is a dispute — or was, at least, at the time a dispute — between the employee and the employer. We have not taken any further steps in terms of looking into it, because that's not our role.

If the employee and, again, if any employee believes that there has been discrimination, they absolutely have the right to pursue that under human rights legislation, and there are a number of different courses of action open to anyone and, certainly, to the teacher in this case.

Generally speaking, the expectation is that the employer, whether it's the public school or whether it's an independent school, will abide by current, existing legislation, which includes the human rights legislation that exists today, and that is our expectation.

Now, specifically about this school, this school was subject, as all independent schools are, to inspection. I believe they were inspected late in 2009, and they were found to be in compliance at that time with the Independent School Act.

[1550]

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister and to the staff for being here today and to my colleague and the Education critic for allowing me a few minutes of the time on this file. I have a couple of questions that relate to my area, Stikine. It has, as the minister is likely aware, three school districts represented within the boundaries of the constituency of Stikine.

The question I have relates to school district 82 and the closure of South Hazelton Elementary School. In mid-March, on March 12, I wrote a letter to the minister outlining some of the concerns there, specifically talking about the rural schools and how the per-student funding formula is difficult to manage for school districts in rural areas. I was curious as to when I might get a response to that letter of March 12 from the minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My apologies for not having responded to your letter. We'll get a response to you as soon as we possibly can.

With respect to school district 82, this is a district where within the last ten years — I know you'll know this — the enrolment has actually declined by over 30 percent, so it's one of the hardest-hit districts in terms of numbers of students. It's just the demographics and the movement of people in the province that's caused that. But the per-pupil funding in this district has actually increased by 42.4 percent in the same time frame, so substantial increased funding on a per-pupil basis.

There are specific amounts within that funding to address the fact that the distances are far, that the population is dispersed and that there are some very small rural schools. That amount of funding is almost $5 million, or it will be this year, to address some of those needs.

[1555]

Certainly, it's very difficult in the school district. The school board will be making decisions around how they will best manage their resources to best meet the educational needs of the students. It does make it very difficult with such very large numbers and fewer students in the district.

D. Donaldson: I thank you for the answer regarding the letter to the minister, and I look forward to getting some details on her response from that.

As far as South Hazelton Elementary School goes, the minister might be aware that the school district is large, like many in the north, and the school is in South Hazelton, 135 kilometres from Terrace. The population statistics that are quoted are perhaps relevant for the school district as a whole, but South Hazelton is in the centre of the Gitxsan traditional territories and a very large demographic. In fact, for under 30 years of age, we have a demographic of twice the provincial average for that demographic.

The school was holding steady on its numbers, and in fact, parents say that the estimates are increasing in that area. My question is around the budget estimates for this year regards South Hazelton Elementary, where 70 percent of the student population there was Gitxsan First Nation, all told.

The minister, I'm sure, is aware in this file right now that the academic achievement in First Nations demographics often leaves something to be desired throughout the province. This school was achieving high academic standards. In fact, despite local health authority 53, which includes the upper Skeena, despite the fact that 46 percent of students in grades 4 and 7 weren't meeting the grade reading requirements, South Hazelton School was doing very well.

The decision by the school district was to shut the school, as I said, in mid-March. It was to save $177,000, which didn't seem like a huge amount to parents. But the reasons the school district cited for having to save costs were the increased costs such as contracts, MSP premiums, the carbon-neutrality legislation and other demands. So the school board made the decision to close the school.

Students have been dispersed to two of the other schools come September. They were grandfathered, so parents had ability to choose which of the elementary schools they could be dispersed to. Many of them choose one school over another. From what I understand now, that school is going to have to increase its size by bringing in portables, which is not a solution that most parents, most educators, I believe, would find the best situation.
[ Page 5432 ]

Those factors that I discussed — rural school, high First Nation population, a history of high academic achievement. My question to you, under this budget cycle: would you be able to commit to undertaking a study of why South Hazelton was able to achieve the high standards in academic achievement that they did, based on the demographic and based on the rural location, and then to support school district 82 up to and including reopening that school in the future based on the findings of the study?

[1600]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our current system lays responsibility for decisions like this clearly with the school district. The school district has resources. As I've mentioned, they do have $5 million, which is to address things like the geography and the small rural schools — the real challenges they face, without question.

There's also funding protection in place for districts like this with declining enrolment. Even though, as you've pointed out, it doesn't apply to this school, it does provide additional resources for the district. But the decision currently lies with the district, and what they're looking at is how they can best manage the resources and educational outcomes for all students.

In some cases the decision to close the school will be made because of critical mass, because of the numbers of students and the kinds of programs that can be provided. I don't know that to be the case with this particular school.

One of the things that we do annually — actually, throughout the year — is look at our funding formula, and one of the things that we have been talking about, specifically with the technical review committee, is looking again at how we provide support for small rural schools. This is a school that will have actually been receiving, I think, something like $170,000 specifically as a small rural school. So is there a different way that we could be doing that that would better support some of these smaller schools? We are looking at that.

While there are substantial resources going to rural British Columbia now for schools like this, maybe there is a different way that we could do it. It's important, I think, when we look at that to consult with groups like the technical review committee, because it contains superintendents and secretary-treasurers who come from all around the province and who can give us advice about issues like this.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. One last question, then, and I didn't hear her response to part of my previous question, in that it may be that the school district is responsible for these decisions. Although it's obvious that the cost structures they've inherited from provincial decisions make it difficult for them to manage the budget.

[1605]

I know the Premier has said that rural schools are the centre of communities and literacy — not that literacy is always in the formal education system — is part of one of the great goals.

I'm sure the minister would be interested in best practices regarding First Nations achievement in the public school system and how South Hazelton Elementary was able to achieve higher-than-provincial-average results with the large First Nations population they have attending that school. I'm sure the minister would be interested in what that is.

Would she be able to commit, under this year's budget, under this budget vote, to study what the successful model was at South Hazelton Elementary so that it might be applied in the future and studied — meaning talking to the teachers, talking to the administrators, talking to the parents and perhaps even, lo and behold, talking to the students? Would she be able to commit to a study on that?

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We have in the province…. We're not sure if this school is one of them, but we can certainly find out and let you know about that. We have a network of performance-based schools that are often schools like this — isolated, small rural schools, often with a high percentage of aboriginal students. The schools are connected and share exactly the kinds of ideas that lead to academic excellence and lead to success and the best practices. So that's happening.

We also have a strong working relationship and partnership with FNESC, and they are absolutely interested in aboriginal achievement and improving it. It's something that we work on closely with them.

Having said all of that, I think that the idea you suggested is a good one. What I am going to do is ask one of the superintendents of achievement to look specifically at this school, identify what was leading to the success, see what details we can get and then see how we can get the most from that information for students' success in the area.

So one of the superintendents of achievement that would regularly be involved with that school district anyway would be a way that we could get at this information, and we'll do that.

D. Donaldson: If the minister would indicate — a nod would be fine — if she'd be willing to share the results of that superintendent of achievement's investigation.

Thanks.

M. Sather: I have a couple of questions for the minister regarding school district 42, which is, of course, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. One of them is around the literacy innovation funding. As we know, the Premier has put a high priority on literacy.
[ Page 5433 ]

The funding for our district was cancelled. That was $110,000. I just wanted to ask the minister if that had been reinstated or if any part of it had been reinstated or if there were any plans to do so.

[1615]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The literacy innovation grants. It was a five-year program, and there was $5 million a year for those grants. It was never part of core funding or never meant to be part of ongoing funding. It was five-year grants.

What's happened is that there are a number of innovative practices that are now just part of what happens in school districts. They've become part what they do in terms of their literacy initiatives. Now there's funding, which is $2.5 million, and it's actually coming through Literacy Now and being used to fund literacy outreach coordinators. In some cases they are through a school district, and in some cases they're through a community.

[1620]

The idea is to take all of the different literacy services — some of them come through Education, but they also come from a number of other places — and coordinate them and provide that role. That's the change that has happened.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Well, it doesn't seem to be satisfactory to my school district, as they are quite concerned.

They talked about the services that they had: supporting grades 3 to 6 in a comprehension project; providing release time for facilitators to meet with school teams to move literacy along; focusing on meeting the needs of at-risk learners and literacy by distributing the money to every school; supporting literacy work in secondary schools as well as the implementation of DART and RAD; supporting the expansion of the Reading Racers summer program; supporting Reading Racers once students have gone back to their schools in September; supporting the work of the district library, including Bookfest, which I've attended and which is a great event; the boys literacy event; and supporting the work of the collegial and curriculum teachers literacy programming and intervention in schools.

Anyway, those are some of the concerns that they have. I want to ask the minister, though, about another issue — the foundation skills assessment testing, or FSA as it's commonly known. The minister will probably know — well, does know — that there's a great deal of concern among some parents and educators about the value of this testing.

In our school district the participation rate has only been about 50 to 60 percent. Yet if kids don't take the test, rather than not being considered part of the overall score, they're given a zero, which really brings down the averages for the district. I'm wondering if the minister has considered changing that in order that if you don't take the test, you shouldn't be considered as part of the averages.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are still compiling the final report for the FSA tests this year in terms of numbers of students that wrote. My understanding is that while 49 percent of students in this district wrote the test last year, this year it's up close to 70 percent, so a considerable increase in the numbers. The final report is nearly done. It's not quite ready yet.

[1625]

In terms of the point that you've raised, to me the important thing for us to do is ensure that the vast majority of students do write this test. We know that when a student isn't meeting expectations on the FSA test, those students are not achieving as well. They are much less likely, for example, to complete, to graduate from high school. Students who are meeting or exceeding expectations have a much higher rate of completing school.

In terms of our goal, which is to have every student reach their full potential, if we are able to identify a student that's not meeting expectations on FSA, then what happens currently is that our superintendents of achievement actually go to each district and work with that district to make sure that the district has a plan for those students. But if they haven't written, then we don't have any way or any ability to identify them and to address whether they're meeting expectations or not.

I think the most important thing is that we ensure that as many students as possible are writing this test. We're working toward that.

M. Sather: Just quickly, my teacher was…. My teacher. My wife was a teacher for many years. Yeah, she's my teacher too, I guess.

She said that the problem with this kind of testing is that the teachers teach to the test. The results are skewed by the fact that teachers will…. If you're scored on your performance on a test, then that's where your educational effort goes. It's not necessarily indicative of a very efficacious test but more, perhaps, of the way that the teaching is done.

The last thing that I wanted to ask the minister about. She will have received this letter from our school board chair about funding for our district. The minister will say that the government has increased funding. I'm not going to dispute that with the minister. But my board says that they passed their 2009-10 preliminary budget, and as a result of the projected $3.2 million shortfall, they had to make reductions in staff and expenditures, including the closure of two elementary schools.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, that our board comes out with a surplus, but it's at a cost, and those are some of the costs. As the board begins planning for the next
[ Page 5434 ]
year — 2010-2011, which is now this year — they're going to face another year of further reductions in staffing programs and services. This shortfall will increase in the event that the ministry does not acknowledge inflation, supporting increasingly complex student needs, financing a growing mandate, and restoring educational and support services eroded by years of budget restraint.

The minister, I'm sure, has been asked by many districts to bring forward further funding. I guess that my question to the minister is: notwithstanding the funding increases, does she acknowledge what my school district is asking and what many others are saying — that the funding they have at their disposal is insufficient to meet the needs that they're mandated to carry out? Or does she think that the school boards are mismanaging their budgets and that that's the problem?

[1630]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Before your question you made some comments about FSA that I'd like to respond to in terms of the test and the point that is sometimes made that having this test causes teachers to have to teach to the test.

I would certainly not say that the test is perfect, and we are willing and actually would welcome the opportunity to work with all of our education partners to see how we could make this test better. But the test does not require….

The test measures whether students have mastered their curriculum, whether their prescribed learning outcomes that are part of the curriculum that should be being taught in every school — whether it's an independent or a public school — whether that has happened and whether the students actually learned them….

There's no special preparation necessary for this test, except that students need to understand what it's going to look like, since it is expected that they will write it. There's no special preparation or teaching that has to happen directly.

If you actually go on line and look at it, this is a test that measures whether students have mastered what they should have mastered at that point in their learning, whether it's grade 4 or grade 7. I did want to make that point.

In terms of the funding, I appreciate your acknowledgment that education funding has increased, so we don't have to review the history of that. Of course it has increased, and back before this budget was provided, we were hearing from a number of the school districts that were very concerned that the government, in fact, was not going to provide funding for full-day kindergarten and was not going to provide funding for the negotiated salary increases.

We did hear from a number of districts once the budget was available. They were really relieved that the major cost pressures that they were experiencing this year, which were the full-day kindergarten and the annual increases, were provided for in the budget and that they were funded. They were also very relieved to see that the annual facilities grant was going to be provided across all of the districts, with an additional $110 million for that.

Now, I certainly do acknowledge that it is a difficult time to govern and that there are other pressures at all levels of government, not only in government but businesses and homeowners. Pretty well everywhere you look, people are tightening their belts a little and are managing with resources that aren't going as far, perhaps, as they would like them to. I certainly acknowledge that that is the case for school districts as well.

That is why we are really committed to working with school districts to find different ways of doing things and, certainly, encouraging them but also actively working with them to find ways that we can find administrative savings.

[1635]

By that, I mean looking at things like a common payroll and other shared business services, where we could actually reduce how much we're spending there without making any difference to educational outcomes, free up some resources and provide those so that they're back with the student. We're committed to that and to doing some work with school districts.

Of course, some of the school districts are doing this as well. Some of them are working with neighbouring districts to share different kinds of work. Some of them are also working with their municipalities to find savings so that, again, they can reinvest them with the students in the district.

D. Routley: Thank you, Minister, for your time and that of your staff.

I represent Nanaimo–North Cowichan. It overlaps two different school districts: district 79, Cowichan Valley, and district 68, Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Both districts face struggles and shortfalls in their budgets. Both are very different districts, Cowichan Valley being more rural and Nanaimo-Ladysmith being more urban in character, but they both face challenges.

First, I would like to address my portion of school district 79. The other representative who represents portions of this district — in fact, most of this district — is the member for Cowichan Valley, to my left here.

The first thing I'd like to ask about is the aboriginal education programs. The district is home to several different First Nations, three of them in my colleague's constituency — those being Cowichan, Lake Cowichan and Malahat — and five being in my own constituency: the Halalt, the Penelakut, Chemainus, the Lyackson, also several Métis students, as well as portions of the of the Ladysmith Chemainus band.

There are 1,500 aboriginal students in Cowichan Valley school district. Currently the district is trying
[ Page 5435 ]
to support an increase in Hul'qumi'num language and cultural programs. I think that was brought to the attention of the minister in a recent meeting with some of the trustees and the secretary-treasurer. They also struggle to provide aboriginal student supports, and they are attempting to hire First Nations employees within their school district. They identify a $470,000 shortfall in supporting their plans.

Can the minister assure the district that they will be able to fulfil their goals when it comes to meeting the needs of these First Nations, these aboriginal students and their success and the obvious benefit of these programs?

[1640]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As the member opposite is aware, I did have the opportunity to meet with representatives from this school district and some aboriginal educators and others who are involved with aboriginal education recently. Also, at the school trustees meeting ministry staff met again with this group. It was a great meeting. We were very impressed by some of the new ideas they were coming forward with and the obvious determination they have to better meet the needs of aboriginal students in this district, because it has been very difficult.

What I can tell you in terms of the funding is that the per-pupil supplement for aboriginal students this year actually is going up. It's going up from $1,014 last year to $1,160 this year. What that means for this district, district 79, is that they'll have $1.4 million specific funding that is supplementary funding for them for their aboriginal students. That actually represents a 12 percent increase over last year's funding.

Now, they can then determine within that funding what their priorities are and what they wish to do with the funding, but there has been an increase year over year. We look forward, certainly, to continuing to work with them. All areas of achievement are important, but we particularly would like to see all of our aboriginal students reaching their full potential.

D. Routley: The Cowichan school district took an interesting approach to their budgeting model this year. They used a core budget, which allotted for the absolute bare essentials of legislated services, and then everything else beyond that was considered an additional service.

Their budget this year, I believe, is $72.4 million. In order to provide what they call a student achievement budget — and this isn't all the bells and whistles and wishes of everyone; these are what they consider to be the essential services to students for them to be as successful as they can be — it leaves them $15 million short. Even to provide the same level of programming and services as they provided to students last year, they indicate to me that this year's budget is short by $2.5 million.

Where does the minister suggest that cuts might be made? The district has been very progressive in the way it's managed its budget. They have all stakeholders at their finance committee table. In fact, all those partners recently quit that process because they couldn't accept, on an ethical level, the types of cuts that they were being asked to make.

They have examined their management structure. They have examined how they provide services and all the alternatives available to them. What would the minister suggest to the Cowichan Valley school district in making up its $2.5 million shortfall?

[1645]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member has asked, basically, for suggestions about budget management. The way that our current system works is that school boards are elected. The management decisions lie with them, so it is their responsibility to make the decisions that this school district actually has been making.

Certainly, I would acknowledge that it has been very challenging. Just in the last five years, while their funding has actually increased by $4.3 million, which is actually 6.5 percent, their enrolment is down 12 percent. That declining enrolment does really pose significant challenges for school districts, and we recognize that.

This is a district that receives funding protection, so this year their funding is the same as it was last year, in spite of the fact that their enrolment does continue to go down. Although we have a per-pupil model, we don't rigidly adhere to it.

At this point the way that the funding formula works is that they'll still receive the same funding, acknowledging that there's a transition as the enrolment declines. But this district has been making management decisions over the last five years, and they have managed to have a $1 million or $2 million surplus at the end of each of their years as they've managed their way through this enrolment decline.

Again, I do acknowledge that it is challenging to do that. We only have eight school districts in the province right now where enrolment is going up, so there are 52 that are struggling. But this would be one of the more significant enrolment declines, certainly in the last five years.

D. Routley: Well, we've seen an enrolment decline, and we've seen an addition of funds, but the balance sheet in every business and every enterprise has two sides. There's the cost side of the balance sheet, and there's the income side of the balance sheet. Clearly, the costs have exceeded the income increases that school districts have been allowed. Otherwise, the minister, in the preface of her question, must be accusing the districts of irresponsible management.

[1650]
[ Page 5436 ]

She's saying that these decisions lie with the districts. These boards have been forced year over year to make cuts. I was a trustee in Cowichan Valley, and I was a representative of some of the workers before that in the Cowichan Valley. I struggled on both sides of the table with meeting the shortfalls that the ministry's underfunding has created in our school districts.

By prefacing her answer by saying that the boards hold the responsibility for these decisions and that they're making these decisions and then saying, "Well, we're providing more money, and there are fewer students," the minister appears to be accusing the districts of irresponsible performance. In fact, districts have been dealt a bad card by the ministry, and the bad card is increased cost against less increase in income. That equals deficit.

If you look at the student enrolment decline in our district of some 10,000 students, around 9,000-some-odd students, it can be made to appear as a significant decline if all taken at once. But over the years it's amounted to about 1 percent per year, and those students don't all leave one classroom at a time. They leave at different grade levels in different schools, and it rarely equates to one teacher in one school, yet that's what the boards have been forced to do: lay off teachers in schools, cut teaching staff.

According to an article in the Nanaimo Daily News on March 22, 2010, by Derek Spalding, we've lost one teacher in B.C. for every 14 students lost. That is not equivalent to our class sizes. We're losing teachers at a greater rate than we're losing students. Therefore, class sizes are increasing.

In 2001 there were 36,650 teachers in the B.C. public school system. Now there are 33,192, according to this article. That's more than 2,500 fewer teachers. Whatever equation the minister wants to offer, her equation needs to explain how fewer students and more funding has equated to cut programs, cut services, closed schools, larger class sizes — a diminished educational experience in one of the leading systems in the world. That is a decline. That is a continuing and building deficit in service.

When the minister points to the school districts by saying, "It's their choice of what they do with the money" and "We're giving them more money, and they have fewer students," she isn't telling the whole story. Trustees, students, parents and the employees of the districts, most particularly the teachers who face those classroom conditions, know the real story. The real story is that we are facing deficits. Our boards of education are facing deficits, and those deficits are played out in the classroom.

My question to the minister — for both district 68, which faces a similar deficit, and district 79: how does she advise those boards to manage their budgets in such a way that they can continue to deliver the services that they do now with diminished resources?

[1655]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite was talking about the number of teachers in the system and about his concerns about class size, so I've got some data here that I thought I would share.

First of all, just sort of at a higher level, over the last ten years student enrolment in the public system — the number of students has declined by about 56,000 students. By next fall it's projected that there will be approximately 60,000 fewer students than there were ten years ago.

Certainly, in my conversations with average members of the public, what they would say, what they're understanding is that if there are close to 60,000 fewer students, their expectation is that we wouldn't have necessarily as many educators, that there wouldn't be as many schools when there are literally almost 60,000 fewer students in the system.

In fact, what's actually happened…. First of all, let's talk about the student-to-educator ratio for public schools. If we look at 2000-2001, that ratio was 16.6. So for every 16.6 students there was an educator. If we look at 2009-2010, it's 16.7. So it's really not a number that has changed and would not reflect or support that class size has increased over that time frame.

Now, if we turn to data that we have for regular instruction teachers, in 2001-2002 there were 24,126 in classrooms around the province. In 2009-2010 there were 23,865. That number has gone down by about 1.1 percent, and that is at the same time that we know that enrolment has gone down more like 10 percent.

[1700]

Again, that would suggest what we know to be the reality — that we actually haven't declined in numbers of teachers as much as we have in the enrolment of our students in B.C.

D. Routley: Well, what we've lost are specialist teachers. We've lost student supports. We've lost all manner of supports that the minister can deny all she wants to get her through the day in estimates, but it will ring very hollow to the ears of parents, trustees and teachers themselves. It's just a simple fact of the experience of the people of British Columbia that they've seen the conditions in their classrooms deteriorate.

We've seen 12,000 classrooms that are above the class size limits imposed by her own government. We see the number of classrooms above legislated numbers of special needs students in the thousands. The minister can dance through the day in estimates with this pattern of denial, but the facts that people experience are entirely different. I'd suggest that it's an affront to their experience to hear that kind of an explanation.

It would be far more…. I think the minister and the government itself would have more support if it stood up and said: "You know what? This is a reality in our schools, and we have seen a decreasing level of service,
[ Page 5437 ]
and we're going to turn that around, and these are the steps that we're going to take." But instead we see this denial.

For example, in school district 68 they have been for years asking for funds to replace or renovate Davis Road Elementary in Ladysmith. There are issues around a number of their schools — capital issues — and the minister will point to increased capital funding over the last couple of years since 2002. But if we look at capital funding in the year 1998-1999, per-student capital spending was $883.71.

That plummeted after 2001 to a low in 2002-2003 of $231.36. Yes, it's gone up slightly since then to $317.45. The minister would answer any question about the quality of schools by pointing to the increase since they hit that abysmal low of $231 in 2002, but we're still dealing with deteriorating schools. Projects have been put on hold because of the shortfalls.

These are the kinds of things that people actually know by experience but will be denied when the minister stands up and points to recent increases in capital spending, even though they don't come close to the level of capital spending in '98-99, for example.

I think it's also an insult to the experience of trustees, teachers, students and parents when the minister says: "Well, there's really not a problem with deficits in the school districts because they end the year with a surplus." Well, they're mandated to have a surplus in their GAAP accounting requirements.

Even though they're making drastic cuts, at the end of the year they're required to have an operating surplus. Then the minister points to that and says: "Well, they can't really have problems because they have an operating surplus." This is manufactured consent. This is requiring districts to follow a plan that sets them up to (1) look as though they're irresponsible and (2) diminish the scale of their problems and allow the minister something she can point to as an excuse for the deficits that her policies have created in the classroom. So it's really quite a devastating reality.

For those people who are not really familiar with the nuances and complexities of school board and Minister of Education budgeting, it's a bit of a confusing conversation that we're having here. Our side is saying, "Well, there's a deficit," and the minister is responding by saying: "No, there's a surplus." So who are they to believe?

Well, I'm going to ask the minister something that I ask every minister, each minister during each estimates process: to illustrate for parents and for those not so familiar with the nuances and complexities of school budgeting how this all works.

I'm going to ask the minister, again, if she would manage my daughter's allowance. She could say to Madeline: "Madeline, you're getting $25 a week. I'm going to double that to $50 a week."

[1705]

Then, during the week I could download onto Madeline's allowance my MSP premium increases, her teacher's salary increase. She could absorb the cost of transitioning to the GAAP accounting that is going to show that she has a slight surplus at the end of the week. When she comes to me and says, "Dad, I don't have the money for all of this," I can simply send Madeline to the minister, and the minister will say: "No, Madeline, you've got more allowance per child than you've ever had before." It just doesn't make sense.

I think that people would respect the minister more and people would respect her party and her government more if they acknowledged the reality that people face every day in the classrooms of this province, acknowledge that there's a shortfall and detail to those same people that we all represent just how she plans to compensate for that declining level of service, because that's what people face every day.

For example, one of the grandparents in my district, Joy Sheldon, when her son comes to his school they're told that they can't accept him. He has special needs. They don't have funding to support his special needs. So in a public school system that's supposed to be universal, there is one child being denied service.

She could explain to people who are routinely told that the service and supports to their children will be reduced in the coming school year. Are they being told an untruth by the school board, by the teacher, by the principal? Or is it a manipulation of fact by the minister and her government that attempts to show people that less is more?

By stacking costs on top of slowly increasing rates of funding and setting districts up with obstacles they can't meet, she is manufacturing their consent for her portrayal, her definition of what is happening here. It is wrong, Minister. It is wrong. Someone in this government needs to stand up and acknowledge what the facts truly are.

The minister will dance, and the answer will be that everything is good and that we're all wrong. All the parents are wrong, all the special needs parents are wrong, and all the trustees are wrong. The minister is right that less is more.

I would challenge the minister, and I know she's come into politics from a position of profession and respect, not to play the game, not to play this cynical game that the government is playing with people's lives and telling us that all is good, that everything is good and that there's no problem here.

I would challenge her to do that. I'll bet that she'd have a much better chance of being re-elected and that her government would have a much higher level of support if they acknowledged the true situation rather than simply telling people that less is more.

[1710]
[ Page 5438 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to address specifically a few of the comments that the member opposite made.

First of all, with respect to class-size limits, there are currently not 12,000 classes that are over the class-size limits. The member needs to review the act to see what these limits are. In fact, schools have to be in compliance with the act, and superintendents are consulted with to ensure that that is the case.

The next thing I'd like to address is the issue about school districts being required to have a surplus. This is not the case. School boards are required to not run a deficit.

If we look at some information about school boards, at the end of 2009 school boards around the province, between all of the districts, actually had $159 million in surplus funds at the end of the year. There were three districts that had deficits, two of them quite small, and we've been working with those districts to eliminate them.

[1715]

But if we look back ten years ago, at that time the accumulated surpluses were $18 million, and at that time there were 17 school districts that had deficits. Certainly, things have changed markedly over that last decade in terms of how things have been managed.

With respect to capital in school district 68, this school board actually had approval from the government of an $85 million capital plan, and they withdrew their support for that plan. That happened over 16 months ago, and we're still waiting to hear from them. But they had approval from government for that $85 million plan for capital investment in school district 68.

With respect to the comments about the state of things in the province now, certainly I would clearly acknowledge, and have many times, that we are just coming out of an unprecedented economic time, a time when we have gone through the worst economic downturn since the Depression. There's no question that it's affected all levels of government and that it's made things very difficult.

But in spite of that, our government said that we would make education and health a priority, and we've done that. At a time when many other governments have actually substantially reduced their funding for these areas, we increased education funding, and we've continued to do that. I think that it shows that we are absolutely dedicated to the education of our students.

We are also working very closely with school districts around the province to see how we can do things differently with the resources that we have. There is a commitment from our government to continue to increase education funding, particularly around full-day kindergarten, with $280 million committed over three years just on the operating side for this important program. So the commitment is there, and it will continue.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of things about school district 61, which is in my area, and also to ask her about 2010 being year 1 for the requirement for school districts to purchase carbon offsets as part of the carbon neutrality legislation.

Maybe I'll start with the provincewide issue around the carbon-neutral requirements for this year. The minister's appointment to be minister has come in the middle of the legislation and the fiscal year where this is now required. I would appreciate her comments on how she anticipates this will serve schools to, in fact, green their infrastructure and green their school buildings and their energy systems.

The first question I wanted to ask the minister is: has she had discussions with her colleagues? She has a number of colleagues that touch upon the Pacific Carbon Trust, which is charged with overseeing the collection and the purchase of offsets. The Minister of Finance is one, and the Minister of State for Climate Action. These are a couple of her colleagues that have a hand in administering and overseeing this legislation.

This is the first year that school districts will pay $25 a tonne to the Pacific Carbon Trust. I place these questions in the context of deficits that my colleagues from around the province have asked about and when difficult learning and teaching resource sacrifices are being made in districts. So $25 a tonne will be paid this year into the Pacific Carbon Trust.

I wanted to ask the minister if she's had discussions with her colleagues about how the Pacific Carbon Trust might be modified so that instead of money flowing from public sector organizations like schools, hospitals and other entities — the 130 PSOs that there are — to the private sector, whether the Pacific Carbon Trust might be modified over time in the coming years to actually invest public sector moneys, pooled moneys from the SUCH sector into greening the infrastructure of schools, for example. Has she had those kinds of discussions?

[1720]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The issue of the carbon emissions…. The member opposite is correct that we have legislation in place, and this is the first year that boards of education have to measure their greenhouse gas emissions and that they actually have to purchase carbon offsets.

Now, all of the school districts signed on to the climate action charter, and what they knew is that they would have to purchase these carbon offsets. They also knew that they would be able to receive reimbursement of their carbon tax. That, in fact, is what will happen. They will be reimbursed for what they pay in carbon taxes on energy purchased to operate their buildings and also to run their transportation.

In 2009 they spent about $2.5 million, and that money was reimbursed to them in March of 2010. But starting
[ Page 5439 ]
this year they do have to purchase offsets, and it's at a cost of $25 per tonne of emissions. The estimate this year is that it will be about 235,000 tonnes, and that will mean that they will be spending about $5.9 million on offsets.

[1725]

With respect to your question about the Pacific Carbon Trust, I'd suggest that would be something that could be canvassed with the Minister of Finance, because I believe his estimates are coming up shortly.

R. Fleming: The carbon tax refund that municipalities and school districts can apply for is then basically consumed by the requirement to purchase offsets, and it's at the same rate — $25 a tonne. So I wanted to ask: wouldn't it be a better idea to allow school districts, along with health authorities and other public sector organizations, to apply and receive money to retrofit their own buildings, to actually reduce their carbon footprints and their emission levels?

I mean, the whole point of this exercise should be to green schools, but here we have, under the current system, the prospect of 60 school districts, most of which are in deficit right now, most of which are looking at losing teaching and learning resources and face a three-year funding horizon that is very challenging and difficult for them…. They're not in a very good position to set aside money for minor capital improvements and to replace things like fossil fuel–based heating systems that they may use, which they should do if we care about the environment. That is the goal here.

In fact, as the minister is aware, the carbon offsets are actually…. Pacific Carbon Trust gets $25 a tonne from school districts for these offsets. I don't know how much they then buy them for in the private sector, but they're literally transferring money to things like Lafarge cement fuel-switching projects or greenhouse growers in the Fraser Valley where they're putting up energy curtains.

There are a number of spas. I don't know if the minister is aware of all of them, but Westin Whistler Resort and Spa will be receiving money from school districts, from classroom resources, from trustees that are figuring out budgets and paying this money, which is then transferred over into the private sector. The Marriott in Whistler is another one. Sun Peaks Lodge, Coast Hillcrest. Hotels have done very well by this system. It's literally money coming from schools going in to green hotels rather than to green school buildings.

I just ask her again, because I know she's heard from trustees and from administrators across her ministry that they would like a system whereby they can recover moneys and invest them into greening schools, especially in the context of the facilities grant fund being at 50 percent of its former level in the pre-election budget.

So is this something that the minister in the years going forward will commit herself to — to refine, to listen to school leaders and to make a determination whether this is in fact helping or hurting efforts to green school buildings across B.C.? Right now the predictions from all the people that report to her who are working to help educate our kids and run schools in British Columbia are saying this isn't helping to green our schools. It's certainly costing us in our bottom line and our ability to provide teaching and learning resources.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

[1730]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Well, first I'd like to say that one of the things I heard most often while I was campaigning and have heard since is that British Columbians were looking and continue to look for strong leadership on the environment. They are very concerned — certainly, most concerned — about the economy and about jobs. But probably after that, for most people, one of their top two or three issues was the environment, and they were looking for us to show leadership. Things like the carbon tax and like public entities becoming carbon-neutral — we are committed to that.

But there are a number of ways that we are providing assistance or that school districts can actually work to become more energy-efficient in the districts. For example, there is a $10 million capital fund that districts could apply to for energy-efficient projects. That was fully subscribed, so that was one source of funding.

The member mentions the annual facilities grant. There is $110 million available to school districts. We expect that many of the projects they will be doing will be energy efficiency projects.

We're looking next year at reintroducing a minor capital program. This is something that the ministry has done in the past, and we're looking at doing that again. Again, we would expect that in many cases, for minor capital projects, districts would be looking at something that would improve their energy efficiency.

[1735]

The other thing that a number of the districts have already done and have been doing over the last decade is entering into energy efficiency service contracts, or ESCOs, which they have entered into with large energy companies where the company actually assists them. They borrow money, and they're able to pay that money back from the efficiencies they gain over the course of those contracts as they become more energy-efficient.

The member mentioned all these districts that are in deficit, and I'd just like to again review the data that we have from last year where school districts overall had $159 million in operating surpluses at the end of the year. Three of them were in deficits. Two were quite small — the deficits that were there, and just going back a decade to when the accumulated surplus was only $18 million and there were 17 districts that were in deficit…. So the
[ Page 5440 ]
vast majority of our school boards are operating within their budgets, and they're managing their budgets.

The other thing that I wanted to mention…. A couple of the members have been talking about the decline in teachers. I'd just like to review the numbers. This is specialist teachers. I reviewed the numbers for teachers in classrooms, but this is for specialist teachers.

If we look at the number in 2005-2006, there were 5,849 FTEs in the province, and if we look at last year, there were 5,785. That's a decline of 64.4 specialist teachers, FTEs, in the province. But during that same time our enrolment declined by 26,000, so proportionately a far greater decline in the number of students than there was in the specialist teachers. I'd certainly like to have that information on the record, lest people be left with the impression that it is other than that.

R. Fleming: I'll just conclude on this section with the minister and say that she's actually very fortunate to be the minister over the education system, because I think that all entities — public, private — that emit carbon and that need to look at their activities and do things more sustainably….

Some have different strategic advantages to them. One of the things that the school system has is an abundance of enthusiasm and interest in doing this from every participant in the school system, whether it's the students themselves or people who work directly for districts. So it's an unprecedented opportunity.

I would urge the minister to familiarize herself with what's going on in the U.K. or in Australia. The Australian government is greening every single school in the entire country, and they're using the energy and enthusiasm of students to help in the design and rollout of that.

And there are in the U.K., for example, publicly funded lending organizations as well as grants available that directly fund from the U.K. Carbon Trust back into the public sector — a far different approach, where we seem to be heading down a road in this province of cross-subsidizing private sector activities.

All the projects I read into the record earlier are good projects, whether they're in ski resorts or the cement industry. They should be done. They will lower emissions in this province. But they shouldn't be done from cash-starved school districts, I don't believe. I think it is going to have an effect of slowing the development in greening of our schools, and that's unfortunate.

I do want to ask the minister one final question, and this is for her opinion on this area. This is the first year, as I mentioned, that schools will be required to purchase carbon offsets, and 130 public sector organizations in B.C. will come on line with this requirement.

Now, there are a couple of notable exemptions from this requirement. I want to ask what her sense of the rationale and the logic of exempting B.C. Ferries…. The minister quoted the school sector's tonnage annually of carbon emissions as being 235,000 tonnes a year. The marine sector's emissions are 2.5 million tonnes per year, and the majority of that is from B.C. Ferries.

B.C. Ferries, a publicly funded service in the province of B.C., is exempt from offsets and the requirement to be carbon-neutral, and that exemption even includes reporting on their emission levels. So I wonder if the minister could tell me if she thinks that the school districts' participation in this program and the exemption of B.C. Ferries is something she thinks is acceptable.

[1740]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I find myself absolutely in agreement with the member opposite. I do feel extremely fortunate to be the Minister of Education. I always have since day one, and every day I feel that way. It is a great job.

You've also pointed out the enthusiasm of the students. When I've been touring schools, it is so wonderful to see the students all around the province who are engaged and are keen on making a smaller footprint, who are totally embracing the programs they have in schools.

For example, a school that I saw last week in Surrey is a litter-free school. They have to carry everything away with them, and it's really changed how they're doing things in that school.

The school where the computer lab is totally…. All the energy is supplied by the wind turbine they have at the school. And other initiatives — they have a bike that some of them will get on and ride. They're actually putting power into the grid rather than using power in that computer lab.

There are a whole bunch of examples like that. Our students are very environmentally aware, much more so than us, and it's great to think of them coming along and actually running things in this province in a few years' time.

With respect to the question that you've asked about B.C. Ferries, I would think that the best place to canvass that would be with the Minister of Transportation.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about a letter she received from the chair of school district 61, Mr. Tom Ferris. It expresses many of the sentiments that are common across the province about the position they feel that they have been put in by this government and this ministry around managing their budgets.

[1745]

The request at the end of this letter is to meet with the minister and to have heard back from the minister by June 1, 2010, a couple of weeks' time, to pursue what they feel is a conversation and a process that will be consultative, which will look at all of the issues to be put on the table for the next budget year because that wasn't done this year. That will help them manage the services they're required statutorily and otherwise to provide.
[ Page 5441 ]

I will just quote from the letter that sort of sums up the tenor of the mood amongst the trustees of school district 61. It says: "Although the provincial education budget has risen, costs continue to outstrip funding increases. Cuts to programs and services will be required, but they are not as a result of poor planning or lack of foresight on our behalf."

So the first question simply is about whether the minister has agreed and responded to Mr. Tom Ferris and if there is a meeting scheduled so that school district 61 can have lots of time to dialogue in advance of next year's school budget.

Then the second question, because I'm running out of time, and I just have a couple more. The second question, if you can hold that thought, is to comment on some of the cuts that indeed have had to be made and that Mr. Ferris referred to. One of them is for the learning initiatives fund.

Now, this is a teacher professional development fund in my district that helps teachers learn to teach students better, students who may have higher learning needs and may have ESL barriers — those kinds of things. There are elementary schools in my district like Cloverdale, Quadra, George Jay — these are inner-city schools — Tillicum elementary and Craigflower Elementary, where teachers, whether within the system for a long time or not, look to upgrade their skills. Now, this fund helped to pay for the time off to achieve that professional development.

The program is being cut, and there was a specific grant, I believe, from the province at one time that for school district 61 has been cut by $110,000. So I would ask the minister, because she said there were some grants being looked at to be restored in other areas of her budget next year, whether the learning initiatives grant is one that school districts like mine can count on coming back. It was very well subscribed. It is extremely relevant, and it improves the learning environment by improving the skills of our teachers.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the requested meeting with school district 61, we offered a meeting time with them, and initially they declined. I'm not sure why. But we made another offer of a meeting time, and we have a meeting scheduled later in May. So we will be meeting.

[1750]

With respect to the program you mentioned, we're aware of that program. Certainly, it was an excellent program. The decision about where to put resources and how to allocate resources is one that school districts make, and they're entitled to make it. In our current system it's up to them, and so that would be a decision they've made for this year. They could make different decisions in future years if they wished to, but they have the autonomy to do that in our present system.

R. Fleming: There are a couple of other decisions I want to ask the minister about, which school districts have had to make under an extremely challenging fiscal environment that is caused by budget decisions made here at the provincial level.

I just wanted to ask the minister, because she was aware of the learning initiatives fund being cut and the impacts that will have on professional development and teaching skills, whether she can update me as to whether she and her ministry are apprised of a couple of award-winning programs, actually, that are under threat of either drastic reduction or elimination.

One of them is the Reconnecting Youth project, which is specifically targeted at vulnerable students who are in the highest percentile of missed classes, are vulnerable and susceptible to drug use and have had difficulty advancing in the school system and in some cases have left it, and are being enticed to return to the school system.

Can the minister advise me whether her ministry has had any communications with school district 61 about how they might additionally help, whether it's outside the funding envelope or in any other way, to ensure that Reconnecting Youth is not lost?

Then the other program is the program that the minister is aware of, the GAP program, which is specifically for girls — the girls alternative education program. It is designed around the needs of young mothers and expectant mothers to stay in the school system, to complete out and to learn skills about parenting and other life skills.

That, as well, was under threat. Some of it was due to her colleague the children's minister and a cut to the program. I know that the Ministry of Education was looking closely at saving such a good program like that. Could she apprise me of the GAP program, as well, and whether she has helped and contacted school district 61 about saving that program?

[1755]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The programs that you are describing are not ministry programs. They're programs that school district 51 created and decides whether or not they'll provide funding. It's not a matter of ministry funding having been removed.

I imagine the member is aware of the history of the ministry funding, but I thought that I would go over it. The member has been speaking about deficits, and certainly a number of the districts around the province have been speaking about deficits.

Last year this school district had an operating fund surplus of $17 million, and that was on a budget of $146 million. But that was not just that year. Over the previous four years the operating surplus had been $15 million, $18 million, $19 million and $17 million, so there's an annual operating surplus each and every year.

Just with respect to the history in school district 51, they are one of the districts that has had declining enrolment. Their enrolment is down 2,917 students in the
[ Page 5442 ]
last ten years, which is 13 percent down. Their funding over that same time…. The students are down 13.3 percent, but their percentage of funding is actually up 8.3 percent, and if you look at it on a per-pupil basis, it's 25 percent. I just thought I'd like to have those facts and those numbers on the record.

With respect to the programs, the school district has autonomy over their budget. They do get to make choices about what programs they will include and which ones they won't include, and these decisions were theirs to make. It is not a matter of the ministry having removed funding for any of these programs.

B. Routley: I'm sure it's been a long day. I've got a few more questions, though.

I want to start off by saying that I'm extremely disappointed that in the Cowichan Valley…. You know, watching school trustees fight amongst themselves…. They're essentially ripped down the middle. The community is very frustrated with what has been going on, a lot of people, parents, attending these meetings and seeing what's happened. In our Lake Cowichan community the A.B. Greenwell School was closed because it was mouldy, and now students are being bused all the way to Youbou, which is frustrating a lot of parents.

The school district has had as a goal a capital spending project in school improvement in the Lake Cowichan area for some time. I know that they've had some meetings with the minister about that, and I'll get to that in a moment.

I do want to say on the record that this is all about choices. The minister is, of course, defending her government's position on rationalizing why people should make these cuts. And they are cuts, because at the end of the day, everybody has to deal with inflationary factors and downloading of costs, additional factors.

We all know that as it is, the funding formula is really broken as it deals with declining enrolment situations. You still have to pay the teacher. You still have to keep the lights on. You still have to pay for busing and all of those infrastructure costs. You have to pay the capital costs of a school district. Yet we've got this goofy model of applying the number of students to a situation that it really doesn't fit, in my humble opinion.

I wanted to mention that this government does know about, and participated willingly in, tax cuts of more than $200 million to the big banks. They had no problem doing that whatsoever, had no problem introducing new legislation to reduce taxation on corporations by $1.9 billion.

[1800]

Could the minister please explain to me exactly what goes on in the thinking of the Ministry of Education when they're looking at issues like special needs students? First Nations is a big deal in our area.

I'm sure that the minister has all the statistics on the higher levels of poverty in the Cowichan Valley, and we all know that one of the solutions to poverty is better education, alternative education programs, that kind of thing. All of those things are being cut.

So could you start with answering the question: how do you just ignore the costs of inflation and off-loading on a school district like school district 79?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have addressed some of these points earlier, but I am certainly more than willing to talk about some of them again.

Earlier this year, before the budget came down, we certainly heard from a number of school districts. Their main concern at the time was that government was not going to provide funding for what they saw as their biggest cost pressures, which were full-day kindergarten and the negotiated salary increases.

[1805]

Once the budget came out, and it was revealed that full-day kindergarten was fully funded and that the negotiated increases were fully funded and, as well, that school districts would be able to have access to $110 million between now and March of 2011, we certainly heard from a number of school districts that they were very relieved. Those were the largest cost pressures that they were facing, and they were addressed.

Now, certainly, there are some cost pressures that school districts still have, and this is true for all levels of government. We are facing, really, very challenging economic times and are looking at doing some things differently and making some choices differently.

When the member opposite mentions the funding formula being broken, I really have to disagree with this. It's a funding formula that has been around for a few years. We know that with this current funding formula, we have three school districts that are in a deficit situation. Two of them are relatively small deficits. We know that, year over year, there are also significant accumulated operating surpluses and have been for quite some time.

If we look back ten years ago with a different funding formula, 17 of the 60 school districts were in a deficit situation. So I would certainly view this funding formula as actually an improvement. Having said that, we do review the funding formula. We enlist the assistance of the technical review committee, which is a committee that has ministry staff and also secretary-treasurers and superintendents from around the province that are sent by their peers.

We do discuss with them how we might modify or change what we're doing. Certainly, this year there were some changes. As a result of that, we have been able to increase the amount of supplement that's going to go for special needs students and for aboriginal students. That is a very positive change at a time when — no question — we are facing economic challenges in the province and at all levels of government.
[ Page 5443 ]

B. Routley: Well, thank you for your answer, although I certainly disagree with some of the responses. However, the issue about schools in the Lake Cowichan area — if we could turn to that for a minute. We had this mouldy school problem, and the school district had already closed the Yount School up in Youbou.

I know that one of the key projects for the school district is doing something about a school for Lake Cowichan to deal with the situation up there. I know, or at least it's my understanding, that they met with you and talked about a project definition report to start the planning process. I assume that that has to do with the capital project money.

I guess my question is kind of twofold. One, do you have any plans to address that project definition report issue? Are you prepared to agree to work with school district 79 on that?

The second part of that is: is the Cowichan district getting fair treatment in terms of capital projects throughout British Columbia, given the situation that we have with the higher levels of poverty, particularly in the Cowichan Lake area?

It's creating additional difficulties for parents, with busing or driving students, which some parents have chosen to do because of concerns about the time that the kids are spending on the road. So any response in terms of a replacement school or any capital spending money for that area that is in particular need?

[1810]

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Chair, would you prefer that I answer?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The project definition report and the funding that goes along with that happen after a capital project has been approved. We don't do that first. We do that afterward.

With respect to the capital plan, you're right. We've met with the school district on more than one occasion, and we're certainly aware that this is their current top priority. In terms of how that will work, when we look at the next capital plan that we'll come forward with, we'll be looking at all 60 school districts.

We'll be considering factors such as enrolment pressures. We do have some very rapidly growing districts, so that will be one of the factors. We'll be looking at the state of the schools that need to be replaced — things like where additions are required. We'll look at the needs of all 60 school districts. That's certainly how we have done things in the past and how we'll continue to do things.

We are aware that this is the top priority for this district and that it is important for this district. It just won't be looked at in isolation. It will be looked at in the context of an overall capital plan.

With respect to investments in this school district, though, there certainly have been ongoing capital investments. In 2003 there was a renovation to Chemainus Secondary School, which was a $5 million project. In 2004 Frances Kelsey Secondary had an addition for a capacity increase, which was over $3 million — actually, close to a $4 million investment. In 2006 George Bonner Middle School had an addition and a renovation for a capacity increase, and that was a $14 million project. And last year Crofton Elementary was replaced, as well as an increase in capacity, and that was a $10 million project.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175