2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 3

[ Page 7071 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call, in this House, the estimates for the Ministry of Education and in Committee A, the estimates for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1005]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $5,241,877,000.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I may, Madam Chair, introduce at the outset here three of the very capable senior staff that will be assisting me during these estimates. To my immediate right is James Gorman, who is my deputy minister. To my immediate left is Rick Davis, who is superintendent of achievement with the ministry and an assistant deputy minister. Keith Miller, who is ADM responsible for resource management, is seated behind me in a discreet and yet supportive way.

I welcome the questions of the opposition.

R. Austin: Thank you to the staff for being here and for all the work that they do in the weeks preceding this to prepare the minister for this estimates process.

I'd like to begin by discussing something which I think one could honestly characterize as a constant irritant, a source of huge frustration to just about everybody who works in the field of education. I'm speaking, of course, about the BCeSIS computer system, something that principals and vice-principals use, that teachers have to use. Ministry staff, of course, have to try and sort out some of the problems while they're trying to collect all of the data that's important for the ministry to gather.

In January of this year the then Minister of Education, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, said that a consultant would be hired to assess if BCeSIS was worth keeping. Later on the current minister said: "It has been characterized by more problems than one would ever want from a new electronic information system, and the process of reviewing that continues, and we do hope to find some ways to make the BCeSIS system a better product in the future."

My question is: could the minister advise the House as to what the status of this review is?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Gartner Consulting has indeed been engaged to look at BCeSIS and the improvement of that product. They have been meeting with all the school districts in the province to understand the experience and circumstance in all of the school districts. They have also met recently with the B.C. Teachers Federation to discuss it with them. Their report is very close to completion, and we expect to see the product within weeks.

[1010]

R. Austin: So within weeks. That's good to hear.

Can I ask the minister how many school districts are currently using the BCeSIS system?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the skill-testing question is 56 school districts.

R. Austin: Could the minister also inform the House as to the number of independent schools that are using the BCeSIS system?

Hon. G. Abbott: That's an even more profoundly skill-testing question than the earlier one. It is being tracked down, through the magic of BlackBerry and the computer world. But perhaps, rather than have the critic wait for the answer, we'll introduce it as it comes in, which will probably be a matter of minutes, but we shouldn't waste the time.

R. Austin: And now to a slightly more complicated skill-testing question. I have asked this question in previous estimates and had to wait for several months to get an answer because it was not at hand. But hopefully now, having asked this question before, the information will have been gathered this time.

I'd like to know from the minister: how much has the ministry spent to date on the BCeSIS system? What is it costing the government to try to keep BCeSIS going in the short term, while perhaps a longer-term fix is chosen and implemented? And what does the minister expect to have spent overall on an ongoing basis for this system?

Hon. G. Abbott: I've got more detail here than I'm sure the member ever dreamed of receiving in an estimates process, but I'm pleased to do that.

In the years since 2003-2004, which were the initial years of expenditure with respect to this system: on capital, including licences and customizations, $15,899,598; on the operating side, software licences, Oracle, $5,207,140;
[ Page 7072 ]
on operating and support over now almost a decade, $61.333 million; on incentive grants to school districts, $6,623,703.

[1015]

The gross operating costs were $73,163,843, producing a grand total for capital and operating cost through the decade of $89,063,441.

R. Austin: Wow, that's an awful lot of money for a system that still doesn't work.

Could I ask if the ministry has got projected costs for an alternative system that meets the needs of the school system? Obviously, if the Gartner report comes in and says that in spite of all the money that's been put into this system, it simply is not salvageable…. How much has the ministry built into the current budget to cover the problems in the short term and start on a long-term solution?

What I'd like to know is: what are the projected costs for an alternative system, and what moneys have been put into this year's budget to cover the problems in the short term and start on a long-term solution, if indeed one is needed?

Hon. G. Abbott: The first thing that we would say to the Education critic is that his assessment that the system does not work is neither fair nor accurate. The system does work. It is a system which has had some challenges, but that is not uncharacteristic of large computerized systems to deal with the very large cohort of students and the number of districts that we have across the province.

We, in fact, feel that despite being a leader here, despite being one of the first in Canada, in North America, to move in this direction, the system has been improved. The code system, for example, has been corrected. We are certainly feeling that the system is much improved, that it is working quite effectively.

As I said in the first response to the member's question, the company that we brought on to do the advising on the system is to advise us how the system can be further improved. Are there products that we can add to the system?

[1020]

But the experience here, I think, is probably reminiscent of both the challenges and the opportunities that occur when one undertakes a bold initiative — for example, with the electronic health record in the Ministry of Health — to start having a comprehensive understanding of patient information in the province.

Similarly, this is what we're attempting to do in respect of the students in the province. There are, I think, over half a million of them. That's a pretty big step to draw all that information together and manage it in an effective fashion, but we are confident that BCeSIS has improved and that it will be an important tool in terms of building a better education system in British Columbia.

R. Austin: It's not as though I'm trying to make out that the system is completely useless. However, it does crash on a regular basis.

In fact, a week ago today I was phoned by a member of the press. Usually I get phoned by frustrated teachers when the system completely crashes, but on this occasion I was called by a member of the press — let's give the press some due — a fellow in Kamloops who follows this BCeSIS system very, very closely. He said that just a week ago, once again, it had crashed.

Obviously, a large system like this has to be able to have the capacity to undertake hundreds of people going on it at any one time. I think it's at those particular times — you know, report card time; the beginning of a school year, when all the data has been put in for the creation of classes; etc. — that the system seems to have the biggest problems.

I certainly want the minister to be aware…. Maybe he hasn't been doing the job long enough yet to have his e-mail box full of frustrated teachers, etc., but this still is very much an ongoing problem with BCeSIS. But I want to move on.

In late 2010 the company that designed BCeSIS was bought over by Pearson, and they have announced that they're no longer even going to support BCeSIS after 2012. Can the minister confirm if this is true? And if so, in view of this, does the ministry intend on committing funding support to assist school districts on moving ahead and away from this system — if, indeed, the Gartner report comes out and says that's the best thing for the government to do?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe the system stability problems which the member referenced have been resolved. I mentioned earlier a correction of codes. We believe that will be useful in terms of system stability. So we're satisfied that we're moving in the right direction with respect to that.

Again, there's probably no system in the world that doesn't periodically experience challenges. Obviously, we want to minimize those, and we're satisfied that we are moving in the direction of minimizing those.

The purpose of the Gartner report will be to review our options as a ministry and as a government in respect of the future of BCeSIS — whether the best option might be to support the system internally, to have the ministry attempt to manage it or to introduce a new system partnership with another firm. Those are options which we are likely to see from Gartner.

[1025]

Of course, when we are in receipt of the report sometime in the weeks ahead, we will begin the process of reviewing those options and making the best choice for not only the taxpayers of British Columbia but the students and the school districts of British Columbia.
[ Page 7073 ]

R. Austin: Once the government has reviewed the Gartner report, will they be making that report public?

Hon. G. Abbott: We would be releasing that report in due course, in compliance with the rules of the province of British Columbia.

R. Austin: The minister has alluded to the fact that there has been lots of input into the Gartner report from all those affected and all those who work with BCeSIS. As the government looks at its responses once it receives that report, will they also be seeking input from those that use the system — teachers, administrators, board members — as to helping in making that decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

R. Austin: I think that is the shortest answer I've ever heard from the Minister of Education in my six years here.

One final question in regards to BCeSIS. The minister mentioned that this is a complex system and that they were trying to bring in something new to British Columbia to gather all of this kind of information. Did the ministry initially look at a system that was already doing this in another jurisdiction in Canada or even in North America, where the bugs may have already been put to rest, before deciding on a system that has cost us over $90 million and has still got problems?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we did. The reality is that there were no off-the-shelf systems then, and there are no off-the-shelf systems today. If one hopes to do this kind of important work in a customized system, which we have…. I think, again, it has not been problem-free. Nevertheless, it has been an important and constructive tool and will, as it is perfected, be an even better tool.

R. Austin: Just one last point of clarification. When the minister says the report will be released, does that mean it will be released freely or does that mean we'll have to do an FOI request and wait several months to get the report? I'm taking the minister at his word that it'll simply be released here in the House or whatever.

Hon. G. Abbott: We expect it to be publicly available, likely posted on the website. We don't expect that people would have to go through any FOI process to have access to it.

R. Austin: I'd like to move on to another topic that I think has huge consequences not just for the education system but for the budget of the province of British Columbia.

I think it's fair to say that the debate on the HST and the upcoming postal referendum on the HST is something that is gathering the minds of both the government and those of us in the opposition, because it'll have the most significance in terms of its final result. If we can agree on that — that the HST debate has the single largest effect on our budget — I think, hopefully, the minister would agree that the recent Supreme Court decision is perhaps something that not only is concentrating the minds of himself and his staff but probably also has the second-largest impact on the overall budget of British Columbia.

I'm speaking, of course, to the results of what has come down as a result of Bills 27 and 28 being ruled unconstitutional here in British Columbia and the fact that class size and composition were removed from not just the bargaining process but the process by which our education system decides on the number of children in classrooms and the number of children with special needs.

[1030]

That, of course, had a huge effect throughout the education system in the intervening years.

You know, sometimes this is referred to, of course, by the teachers as their working conditions. What our teachers' working conditions are, of course, are students' learning conditions, and I think that is the thing that we have to concentrate on. What is the best atmosphere, what is the best ratio, what is the best class composition so that a teacher is able to use their skills to provide the best education to every child in the class, both those who have been identified as having special needs and those who are typical learners?

I want to get to the effects of this Supreme Court decision, and my question to the minister is: how much funding has been included to restore the teacher-librarians to the ratio that existed in 2001? What does the minister expect his ministry to have to do to restore that kind of ratio which, obviously, is part of the negotiations as a result of the Supreme Court decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, in reference to Bill 28. There has been, very recently, as the member knows, a decision by the B.C. Supreme Court, as opposed to the Supreme Court of Canada, in respect of Bill 28. The B.C. Teachers Federation, post the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Bill 29, commenced an action in B.C. Supreme Court on Bills 27 and 28. The member has relatively accurately characterized what that was about.

The government, as the member knows, recently made a decision not to pursue an appeal with respect to the B.C. Supreme Court decision on Bills 27 and 28. I advised the B.C. Teachers Federation of that when government had made that decision. I indicated to them that we would be opening up discussions in respect of the structure of discussions, because the B.C. Supreme Court has given the parties one year to work through the issues that are associated with the judgment. That would take us through to, potentially, early April of 2012.
[ Page 7074 ]

So my suggestion to Susan Lambert, the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, was that a team from the government and BCPSEA would come forward to talk about structure. There may or may not be a structure similar to the discussions we had on Bill 29, and there may or may not be a process that would be similar to that undertaken in Bill 29.

But it is far too early to speculate on costs. The B.C. Supreme Court decision doesn't oblige a discussion around costs; it obliges a discussion, which has not yet been undertaken. We will have the earliest discussions around structure and process. Hopefully those will be successful. The issue of dollars that might be necessary for remediation are certainly for another day and would be premature at this point.

R. Austin: I would say this, that this decision will have huge ramifications, obviously. The minister is obviously not able today to give a specific figure as to what it will cost to remediate in terms of just teacher-librarians, which is the specific question I asked.

The minister, of course, in his prior role has been the Minister of Health. It's fair to characterize the Health Ministry, the largest one in our province, as having several cost drivers: pharmaceuticals, capital, the cost of salaries to those who work in health care.

[1035]

In teaching — and technology, of course, the huge drive in technology — and education, of course, the cost factor is different in the sense that one thing, salaries, makes up approximately 84 or 85 percent of every school district's expenditure. It's one thing, salaries, because in education it's largely about interaction between adults who are there, and we don't have a lot of other cost drivers.

My point I'm trying to make to the minister is that this court action and the effects of it will, during the process of negotiation, largely be around bodies, around putting people back — whether they be teacher-librarians; whether they be teachers themselves in terms of class sizes changing; or whether it be more teachers themselves, especially special ed teachers — if we're going to handle the class composition.

I've seen the figure put about of $275 million. I think that may have been used in the court case put forward by the teachers federation saying: "Look, you know, if these bills, 27 and 28, hadn't been struck down, this is what we think the figure would have been in terms of the continuing amount of funding going into education, above and beyond all of the increases that have happened in the intervening years between 2001 and now."

My question to the minister is: what do the minister and his staff believe would have been that cost figure, had these bills not been put there?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for reminding me of my four-year adventure as the Minister of Health in this province. Regrettably, I find his argument interesting but not compelling with respect to the importance of the human resource component of education versus health. In both cases, salaries comprise the lion's share of ministry expenditures. It is a little bit larger in education than it is in health, but in both cases, they form the great majority of the costs of both systems.

R. Austin: I didn't hear the minister give an answer as to what he believes would have been the difference had Bills 27 and 28 not been implemented. What is the difference in terms of the number of dollars that would have remained in the educational system to ensure the original class size and composition that was there prior to these bills coming in?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have not undertaken that detailed work at this point.

R. Austin: When that detailed work is completed, as the critic, would I be able to have access to that work?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member may be proceeding from a false premise. The decision by the B.C. Supreme Court on Bills 27 and 28 did not order the removal of the law around class size and composition. It didn't, in short, order a specific remedy. It ordered a process, which we will be undertaking in the days and weeks ahead as the parties begin to discuss structure and process.

[1040]

R. Austin: Am I wrong in concluding, though, that in this process, in this negotiation to remediate the unconstitutionality of these two bills…? Am I correct in saying that it does involve, or will involve, negotiations that will somehow restore things such as teacher-librarians, the number of teachers and the number of specialized ESL teachers? Am I correct in assuming that, or am I wrong on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: It may. It would be presumptive of us to conclude what it will or will not include. That will be to the parties as they proceed with their discussions with respect to structure and process and then, of course, the substantive elements that they'll be considering in terms of addressing the issues raised by the B.C. Supreme Court decision.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell us if…? When this negotiation is over, will class size and composition once again be part of the collective agreement, or is it the will of the government to try and negotiate this process outside of the collective agreement?

Hon. G. Abbott: It would be presumptive to conclude that. That is not clear at this point.
[ Page 7075 ]

R. Austin: Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of that ruling from the B.C. Supreme Court was that the government was unconstitutional in removing it from the collective bargaining process. Is it therefore not fair to assume that the expectation from this judgment is that it would again be a part of the collective bargaining process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Supreme Court's decision was around the process that was followed, not the substantive decision.

R. Austin: I would just end on this little section by saying that I sincerely hope that this process of negotiation to remediate this problem is, in fact, one that ends up being sorted out and is beneficial to not only the taxpayers of British Columbia but to all of the children that we serve in our public education system. I am getting a little bit worried, a little bit concerned from the minister's answers that we may end up going further up the court system to resolve this. I hope that doesn't happen.

I just wanted to move over to another topic, and that is one of the foundation skills assessment. As we all know, there's been a lot of controversy in this province around the FSAs, and I'm totally aware of when they were brought in and who brought them in and what the intention was of having FSA tests in the province of British Columbia. Nevertheless, I think the minister, hopefully, will agree with me that they have become a huge bone of contention for a number of reasons.

I would mention here that the minister and I were privy to a presentation done, I guess, about five or six weeks ago in Vancouver from a well-renowned and respected academic who came over to give a presentation of some of the things that they had done in the country of Finland to make their education system be regarded as one of the best in the world. One of the things that he did a presentation on was the fact that they don't really have any nationwide statistical gathering of foundation skills.

[1045]

I'm sure the minister will remember a cartoon that was put up but had a very serious note in that cartoon. That, of course, was one of a series of different animals — a giraffe, a monkey, a tiger, a lion. A person was standing behind these animals, and behind them was a tree. The person, basically, in the cartoon said: "And now for your next test, you all get to climb the tree."

While, of course, it was amusing, and I'm glad to see that the minister also found it amusing, it does point to one of the big problems around the whole notion of standardized tests in the sense that all children are individuals and learn in different ways and at different times.

To have tests that are so specific around very small criteria, when children have all kinds of variety of skills…. Part of the problem with FSAs, of course, is that we are testing only a tiny proportion of an individual child's abilities in a very small thing. Then we are taking those statistics and putting them out there, especially in places like the Fraser Institute, where we are then judging our children as to their intelligence, based on this narrow reading of skills that is done in a snapshot — one day in grade 4; one day in grade 7; one day, later on, in secondary teaching.

You know, our concern around FSAs is that maybe our intention was good when we started with them, but now we need to look at some alternative. Anyway, those are just my thoughts on it, and I would welcome the minister to share his thoughts.

I'd like to ask a specific question. We were told that the 2010-2011 participation rates would be available in March of this year. Are these available?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I am certain that there are a large group of people across this province who have been sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting for the number of independent schools that are on the BCeSIS system, and that number is 130. So that important issue is resolved, I believe, unless there's a follow-up from the critic on that.

On foundation skills assessment, first of all, I certainly would agree that the foundation skills assessment test has been controversial in some quarters. It has been particularly controversial with the B.C. Teachers Federation but certainly not exclusively with them.

There is always some debate in the world of educators about what is the optimal testing or assessment regime in a jurisdiction. To me, the foundation skills assessment is a sound assessment. It is something which tells us how well a child is proceeding in terms of how well they can read, if they can they do basic math skills and if they can they express themselves in written form. It has value as a test.

I think that were it not for what has been even more controversial, which is the Fraser Institute's ranking of schools based on both participation and outcome of FSA testing, this would not be the controversial issue that it is today. I know that the TF is particularly aggrieved of the Fraser Institute's rankings of schools on the basis of the FSA testing.

But it is an area where…. I'm kind of a Sir Ken Robinson fan with respect to this. FSA is one test, and it appears to be a sound test. Whether to take the results of that and rank schools is sound — it's a whole other question. But I think that, methodologically, the FSA is sound. It provides us with important information about how children are proceeding in their education. I do think — and I've said this to the Teachers Federation — that it is an important test, but it is a test. Whether we can complement, supplement, improve — or any other number of things — the FSA, I think that's a great area for discussion.

[1050]
[ Page 7076 ]

But I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate to throw out the FSA because schools were ranked, appropriately or inappropriately, based on that.

Also, a note to the final portion of the critic's question. FSA participation was up slightly in the most recent year, but the results are not yet finalized. But it looks like they're up slightly.

R. Austin: When will these participation rates or the results be out?

Hon. G. Abbott: The participation rate: a little bit more than 80 percent. We expect the results to be finalized within the next few weeks.

R. Austin: Is there a percentage benchmark below which the ministry would view participation rates as problematic — for example, if a school district had less than, say, 60 percent participation rates? If so, did any school districts fall below this mark in the last few years?

Hon. G. Abbott: To our knowledge, no district has ever fallen below 60 percent in terms of participation rates. The overall, as I've just mentioned, is just over 80 percent, and it appears that it came up slightly in the most recent year. But this is a test. The FSA is an assessment that is important to parents. Many parents want to have an understanding of how their children are proceeding.

I think it is also important from the perspective of taxpayers and their sense of how well their $5.8 billion overall investment in education is working. It's also important to superintendents, principals, vice-principals and others involved in administration to have a sense of how it is proceeding.

Again, none of that goes to the question of the ranking of schools. That is another question. To me, this test is important, but again, the opportunity to think about whether this test should be supplemented, complemented, improved or otherwise altered is, I think, a live discussion.

I'm probably going beyond what the critic has asked me and probably beyond what some of the very capable and knowledgable advisers around me might suggest, but to me, it is very important…. If we are going to have personalized, individualized learning in our schools, I think we need to start in kindergarten understanding how well children are proceeding — or kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2 — in terms of ability to read, ability to write and numeracy.

Those are, I think, critical areas for us. I think the FSA, nevertheless, remains an important tool. It is unfortunate that this has become a great political controversy, I think, because it is just an assessment.

[1055]

R. Austin: I'd like to thank the minister for his remarks, because in spite of what people sometimes think — that we in this House don't agree on anything, or very much — in fact, I agree with a great deal of what the minister has just said. I also agree that there needs to be something else, maybe, to complement these FSA tests. I also agree wholeheartedly with the minister that one aspect of it that has made it very controversial is the notion that if somehow a particular school had low FSAs, somehow either the teachers were incompetent in that school or somehow there was something dysfunctional about that school. It is very worrying. That's not the purpose of these tests, and it was never meant that way.

I would just like to share with the minister a school in my region — not in my district, but one which I visited a number of years ago — a small community school in Prince Rupert by the name of Roosevelt Park Community School. I went there to visit them as a community schools coordinator in the year in which I believe they were ranked as "the worst school in British Columbia."

What I witnessed in that school was actually quite extraordinary. You had teachers who were committed to their profession working under very challenging circumstances with a client population, a student population, that came from very challenged families.

I think I'm right in saying that over 50 percent of the children at that school, their parents were living on social assistance. There was a First Nations population, again, that was in excess of 50 percent. We all know the challenges that many of the First Nations have in regards to their schooling as a result of the historical fact of what was done in the past around their education and the mistreatment of First Nations children and the consequences of that that have followed down the generations.

I left that school very heartened by what I saw there. I remember driving back to Terrace thinking, "Boy, I wonder if you took these students and the circumstances of their lives and put them, say, in West Vancouver and asked the teachers in West Vancouver to teach these children, how well they would do," even though that year, I would imagine, the schools in West Vancouver were high up.

My point is that it just isn't right to take FSA test results and then say that a school is bad or that the teachers are bad, or whatever. There are so many factors that go beyond just what these FSAs are there to test. I think we need to have a very broad discussion on what the next steps are in terms of trying to find a solution and a better way of assessing.

I would like, finally, to make one other remark, and that is in terms of parents wanting to know how their kids are doing. It's important for us to realize that teachers assess their children, their students, if not on a daily basis, on a weekly basis certainly. If parents want to
[ Page 7077 ]
know how their kids are doing, my suggestion would be to go and see their teachers or pick up the phone and ask them. Teachers are not testing their kids just once in grade 4 and once in grade 7; they test them every single week. That's part of the practice of teachers.

I would hope that would encourage the interaction between parents and their teachers, which I think is another very important aspect of our education system that we somehow fail to connect with. It's not simply the responsibility of professional educators to be educating our children; it's the responsibility of us as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, whatever.

I would hope that when it comes to the whole notion of parents wanting to know how their kids are doing, they would be more proactive in simply interacting with their teachers on an ongoing basis to find out how their kids are doing.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts around FSAs. I would like to ask the minister this question. If school districts have low participation, and some of them have gone, I believe, as low as 30 percent, does that not make the whole process of data collecting not valid? Does that not corrupt the data, if you have a school district which has such low participation rates? If that's the case, would it not be better, then, to do some kind of randomized testing as opposed to overall standardized testing?

[1100]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think there's a real danger in the House here of consensus breaking out. That, of course, is something we should guard against at all times. I very much appreciate the member's thoughtful comments in respect of the FSA, and it may well be that we do have something like consensus with respect to it.

I'll make a couple of observations, because this is, I think, very important in terms of the future of education in the province. It's fair to say that we believe in more information to guide us rather than less, and the FSA is one source of that information.

Take the example — and I very much appreciate the member bringing this example forward — of Roosevelt Elementary, because I think both the member's perspective on this and his analysis of it are important.

Roosevelt Elementary was, in the Fraser Institute ranking, determined to be one of the weakest-performing schools. Interesting, though, that the C.D. Howe Institute, when they looked at the same data but factored in socioeconomic variables, moved Roosevelt Elementary from the bottom of the heap in the Fraser Institute to at or near the top in terms of the C.D. Howe ranking of that same school.

To me, there's a huge object lesson there, and I think we're just starting to wrap our heads around how we deal with this.

It is not the FSA that should be controversial. It should be how we take that data and how we analyze it and what we include in terms of forming our conclusions. In short, what are the dependent and independent variables that we might want to add to understand what that data really means?

That, I think, is hugely important, and I appreciate the member raising the issue of Roosevelt Elementary. I think there's a kind of object lesson there for the system, potentially, in terms of how it's not the data that's the challenge; it's how you manage the data and the conclusions that you draw from the data that is so important.

In terms of the member's last question around a 30 percent participation rate — because we've now got the detail on this — the lowest participation rate by any school district ever was at Fraser-Cascade at 59 percent, just below the 60 benchmark which the critic referenced earlier. That's the lowest one that we're aware of ever.

I guess it's fair to say that — and this, again, goes to the strength of the data — clearly, a participation rate of 100 percent by the cohort is going to yield stronger data than a 60 percent participation rate or an 80 percent participation rate.

[1105]

Again, it would go back to the question of the FSA. Is it the data that is produced by that test that is at issue, or is it the conclusions which one may appropriately or inappropriately draw from it?

R. Austin: I thank the minister for his comments. I note that Sooke, I think, had a participation rate of 59 percent in '09 and '10.

I'd like to go back just to repeat my question, though. If you have a statistical analysis that does require every child to participate and then you have districts…. Some of them are fairly large. I think the participation rate was around 70 percent in Vancouver one year, and that's a huge school district.

I've only done statistics 101, so I'm not by any means an expert in statistics. My understanding is that if you don't have a good participation rate and something where everybody is supposed to participate and you have individual school districts where 20 percent or 30 percent of the kids don't participate…. Does that not corrupt the data?

In that case I would like to ask the minister: would his staff not recommend randomized testing, which would perhaps…? Again, I'm not an expert in statistics, but my understanding is that in randomized testing, one can extract a picture of a system without forcing every child in the system to get all tense and all stressed out to participate in this. That's my question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's fair to say that we believe the same reasons that prompted the NDP government of the late 1990s to bring in the FSA still exist. That is, if you
[ Page 7078 ]
have an FSA, it allows not only an opportunity for individual parents to understand how their kids may be doing in respect of reading, writing and numeracy, but it also provides a system perspective on how it is going.

It also provides, very importantly, an opportunity to access subsamples — for example, aboriginal learners and how well they are doing, or children with special needs and how they're doing.

I know, from the perspective of the child advocate, that it's very important for her that this test continue because it does provide for her and for Dr. Kendall and others an opportunity to have a better understanding of how learning is proceeding for those vulnerable populations.

I raise the issue about the late-'90s introduction of this test not to be provocative. That's not my intention. I think, in fact, the member is very responsible in his comments with respect to this. I suspect, should he have the opportunity someday to be Education Minister, that he would probably…

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Dream on. Dream on.

…want to deal with this in much the way that we are dealing with it now, which is to say that this is the FSA. Clearly, it is a test. It provides us with useful data, both of a generalized and more specific nature. It is a useful test, but it is only a useful test, and one shouldn't form conclusions about schools or the school system based on it.

[1110]

As the member rightly observed…. Again, I appreciate him raising the example of Roosevelt Elementary, because that's kind of a classic example. Depending on the variables that you attach to the data, it can completely change the sense of how well that school is doing.

I agree with the member's suggestion that if you have a school that is comprised of 50 percent or more vulnerable students, there are going to be some special challenges with respect to that school.

I had this similar experience when the hospitals of our province were ranked. My community hospital in Salmon Arm, which is a great little community hospital, was ranked very near the bottom — again, I thought unfairly because it had things like a palliative care unit inside the hospital at the time, and it tended to skew the results.

So what I'd say to the member is that, you know, this is an important issue for government, regardless of what the political stripe of government is. It's important for parents. It's important for administrators.

Let's think about how we can improve our understanding of what the data means, rather than try to strip ourselves of that data. I think it would be a retrogressive step. I'd be keen to know the member's view on this, but I believe it would be a retrogressive step to strip away that opportunity to gather data that we have at grade 4 FSA. Absolutely, let's have the discussion about complementing, supplementing and improving, but to take it away, I think, would be a backwards step.

R. Austin: I thank the minister for his comments. I agree that we don't need to be removing in its entirety — certainly in its entirety — the data that we are gathering from FSAs. I'd like to go back, though, to the specificity of my original question here, which is: does the minister believe that we could get this information — a picture, a snapshot of the system as a whole — through random sampling of this test, rather than it being systemwide?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, if I may interrupt myself briefly to make an introduction in the gallery, with your permission.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery I see two gentlemen who I had the opportunity to meet with recently. They are Fred Herfst and Peter Froese, who are leaders of the Federation of Independent Schools in the province. Perhaps they've just randomly found themselves in the gallery here during Education estimates. If so, it must be an utter delight for them to do so. We were just, in fact, speaking about the 130 independent schools that are on BCeSIS — for better or for worse, I'm sure, from your perspective. That was one of the little things we talked about earlier.

Fred is retiring this year, so in addition to having the House welcome the two distinguished gentlemen, perhaps we can, as a Legislature, wish Fred all the best on his retirement.

Debate Continued

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of randomized testing, again, it goes back to this point, which is important to the child advocate and important to many who are concerned about vulnerable populations in our province. That is that with randomized testing, we would not have access to a subsample which would tell us how aboriginal learners or special needs learners or other vulnerable subsets are doing. That's the challenge.

Could randomized testing be used as a supplement, a complement or other to FSA? I think the answer is yes. We might, for example, think about doing it on a randomized basis at different grades but continuing to do it at grade 4. But again, that's an interesting conversation or debate to have and not one that I'd be opposed at all to having.

[1115]
[ Page 7079 ]

R. Austin: In terms of the minister's comments around FSAs, I think that he and I are doing a very good job of depoliticizing what has been quite a controversial subject outside the halls of this Legislature.

My next question to the minister is this. Given that this is a complex issue and given that there is certainly a consensus in terms of both sides of this House trying to find solutions to some of the problems around the FSAs, could the minister tell the House what is ongoing in terms of trying to bring in all the partners to have this discussion, which he and I have been having for the last little while, around FSAs? What is the ministry doing right now to bring in the various stakeholders and partner groups to try and find a solution to this and to find a more comprehensive form of assessment that the minister talks about?

I think it is an important thing to do. It's important not just for government to have all these statistics; it's important for the taxpayers to know what their investment is doing in terms of the success of the school system. But I also think it's a way to try and involve parents more in the system.

So my question again is: what is the ministry doing to bring the partners together to try and have this dialogue so we can have a better system of assessment?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's fair to say, in response to the member's question, that FSA is of great interest to all of our educational partners. It is certainly an issue that is very important to the B.C. School Trustees Association. It's an issue of interest to the principals and vice-principals, an issue of interest to the superintendents, an issue of importance to parents and PACs, and so on.

I'd say, in respect of every discussion that I've had with every partner group in the educational system, this has come up. It is of particular consequence, of course, to the Teachers Federation. That's where much of the controversy has been engendered, but it's important to all groups. It does form a part of all the ongoing discussions that we have with all the partner groups.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House what efforts the ministry is doing to encourage those school districts that have had low participation rates? If that is spotted, what does the ministry do to try and encourage that particular school district to try and up their participation rates?

Hon. G. Abbott: Much of the work with respect to the foundation skills assessment is undertaken by the ministry through superintendents and through superintendents to principals and vice-principals across the province. We provide them, for example, with participation rates of all of the schools within their districts. We encourage principals and vice-principals to offer up to parents an opportunity to ask questions in respect of the FSA, to explore any of the areas of concern that parents might have around the FSA and I'd say, overall, to demystify what has become politically controversial but which is educationally valuable.

That's the challenge we have ahead. I don't underestimate that challenge. The fact that participation went up slightly is, I hope, an indicator that we can move forward.

[1120]

Again, I think there needs to be that continuing important discussion, though, about how we interpret the data — and we've had a good discussion of that and a very constructive discussion of that — but also how we ensure that we get the best possible pool of data by encouraging participation. That's the challenge, I think, that we have as an education system.

R. Austin: I'd like to just move on and have a discussion specifically around students with special needs. As I'm sure the minister is aware, in the last number of years — and this may be partly as a result of Bills 27 and 28, although not entirely — there has been a reduction of specialized teachers with ESL and special needs designation, in terms of those specialized teachers where regular classroom teachers can go and access those specialized skills of a teacher who has been taught to help assess and help a child come up with strategies for a child that's been identified with special needs.

It's kind of a vicious circle because, of course, as more children have been identified — say, in the last ten years — the number of kids who are then put on to the caseload of those teachers who have those specialized skills has increased their workload. I guess, naturally, teachers want to do what's best for themselves as well, and there have been some teachers who have said: "Well, you know what? It's not worth doing it. I just can't get to all the kids that I want to. I don't feel I'm valued. I'm going to go back into the classroom as a regular classroom teacher."

That is what has been occurring, and I'm sure the minister is aware of that. My question is this. Is the ministry putting any special resources to provide for in-service training to ensure that teachers have the necessary learning opportunities to help them deal with the increasingly complex world of educating students with special needs?

[1125]

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of management of special needs in the classroom is a hugely important issue from my perspective. When I have the opportunity to talk not only to the Teachers Federation but to individual teachers when I visit schools, invariably classroom composition comes up as an important area. That, generally speaking, involves the management of special needs in the classroom.
[ Page 7080 ]

I recognize that this is an area of great importance to teachers and to administrators in schools. I think it is an area where we can improve our management and our opportunities for special needs children in the schools. Indeed, that's an area where I'm looking forward to, I hope, a very productive and constructive discussion with principals and vice-principals and with the Teachers Federation and teachers about what it is we can do as a school system to ensure that every child has their optimal opportunity to succeed.

Are there ways that we can improve the management, including the distribution of special needs in the classroom, to ensure that we find the optimal result? That's a very important discussion, and I think it's fair to say that while this discussion has been going on for a while, from my perspective as a relatively new Education Minister, it's an early-stage discussion for me.

Overall, in terms of special education teachers, and this doesn't include teacher-librarians…. We believe that there are, over the decade, about 700 fewer special education teachers. We recognize, of course, that there are also about 59,000 fewer students in the education system than there were a decade ago, about a 10 percent reduction. But there are fewer special ed teachers, enrolled teachers.

There are, however, 1,800 more special education assistants or teacher assistants in classrooms than there were a decade ago. So there's been a shift there. Now, again, whether that's the optimal shift…. I think that's an area that is deserving of discussions. I do think this is an area where we can improve our effectiveness.

R. Austin: I would just comment on the minister's statement by pointing out that even though we do have 59,000 fewer students overall in the last decade, unfortunately the proportion of children identified as having special needs has not gone down anywhere to the same proportion as the overall student population. So we still have seen a large reduction of specialized teachers to deal with kids with special needs. We've still seen quite a number of kids who are identified and need those specialized skills.

I would also just comment, you know…. I'm not trying to denigrate in any way the important work that's done by teaching assistants. In fact, I used to be one for a couple of years. But the reality is that teaching assistants simply don't have the level of educational expertise to be able to deal with the challenges that many kids with special needs have. We can be part of the support system, but at the end of the day, we still need to have those teachers in place who have gone and learned all those extra skills to be able to work with kids who have special needs.

I'd like to ask the following question to the minister. I'm from the northwest, so I'm just going to point out that the north coast and my own school district, 82, are examples of school districts that recognize that they have a higher proportion of children with special needs than is the provincial average. As a result of that, they have to take a much larger proportion of their school budget that would normally go to typically learning kids and allocate it to kids with special needs. Otherwise, they would simply have tens, if not hundreds, of kids completely falling through the cracks.

[1130]

My question is this. Is the minister providing or going to provide more direct funding directed to students with special needs so that school districts aren't having to take out of the general pot to augment those kids who have been identified but don't necessarily get the funding that would have been there if it was directed directly to special needs kids? I hope that makes sense to the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member may get a greater volume of information here than he ever dreamed of from his very appropriate question.

First of all, in terms of students with special needs, it is important to recognize that it remains a compelling challenge. Indeed, as I acknowledged in my earlier answer, I do think it's an area where we can and should improve how the ministry works with superintendents and principals and vice-principals, how the principals and vice-principals work with parents and with students and with teachers. I think there's much that we can improve in this area.

Just so we're clear on baselines and so on here, there were, in the '05-06 school year, 61,275 students identified with special needs. That has declined slightly and fairly predictably over time, so that in '10-11 we're now at 58,320. There has been a modest decline in terms of the identified students with special needs.

It's not to say that the challenge has disappeared. That's not the point of what I'm saying. It's just to give you a sense of the challenge that we have here. From '09-10 to '10-11 the overall enrolment of students with special needs again decreased by 381, although some groups of high-needs students continue to grow.

Boards of education received $382.9 million in levels 1, 2 and 3 supplemental funding in 2010-2011. That's $58.3 million more than in 2009-2010. Again for the information of the member, and I hope I'm not overloading him here, the base amount for each of the three supplemental funding categories also increased in fiscal '10-11. Level 1 increased by $4,600 to $36,000 per student. Level 2 increased by $2,300 to $18,300 per student. Level 3 increased by $1,200 per student to $9,200 per student now.

We are recognizing that this is an important challenge. The numbers in terms of the challenge and the dollars available are encouraging, but I do think there is still much we can do if within the culture of school operations
[ Page 7081 ]
we have greater cooperation, collaboration between administration and teachers and parents, and so on. I think there is some room for improvement there.

R. Austin: I'd like to comment…. Looking at those numbers that the minister has just given me, I'd like to also speak to a group of children which teachers know all about. So do administrators; I suspect that the ministry does as well.

[1135]

They're sometimes referred to as grey-area kids — kids who, for one reason or another, are recognized by the classroom teacher as having some learning challenges but who have not been identified and, therefore, don't qualify for any of these specific categories of funding. Yet they are present in the classroom and have, obviously, a huge influence in terms of the classroom dynamics. I'd like to ask the minister to share his views on this situation.

In numerous school districts around the province, particularly those that are far away from a major urban centre, there are not the appropriate people, necessarily, there to do the testing.

For example, in my neck of the woods in northwest B.C. very often people have to fly up from Vancouver at huge cost to come and do the testing. So a lot of teachers will recognize that they have one or two kids or whatever in their classroom, but they've sort of even stopped bothering filing the paperwork, knowing that their school district doesn't have the financial resources to bring the person in to do the specialized testing.

Then, of course, they may not necessarily have enough funding in their envelope to put in place the IEP if that child was fortunate enough to get tested and recognized as having a learning challenge.

Could the minister comment about that and present some solutions as to how the ministry is going to deal with all of those kids? I would suspect that there are hundreds of them in British Columbia who have not yet been tested, need to be tested and need to then get the correct supports in order for them to have the opportunity that we all want for every child in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member began his question with the grey-area kids, which again acknowledges an important area.

In the education system in the decade ahead, I think the most exciting possibility revolves around an area that is typically referred to as personalized learning or individualized learning or 21st-century learning, where we try to look at each child as they enter the system. Currently, or this September, it will be full-day kindergarten. As they enter kindergarten and move on to grade 1, grade 2, we put a greater emphasis in those very early years on identifying any barrier to learning that may exist among that very young cohort.

I think we've increasingly recognized, as a ministry and as a government, how important it is to have a very early identification of any barriers to learning that may exist, optimally to pick those up in kindergarten and grade 1 and have a focused remediation of those issues in the early years.

I think all of the scientific evidence that we have points to our best opportunity to remediate any skills gaps or any learning barriers being in that kindergarten to grade 4 period in the young learner's life. That is a huge issue, I think, in the future of the system. The Education critic is right to identify it as an important area for discussion here and an important challenge to the ministry and to the education system in dealing with that.

In part it is a labour market challenge. There are some of the skilled professions that on a North American perspective are in very short supply. For some of the important paraprofessionals, they are produced only by one program at UBC.

It's always a challenge for the system to understand that if you need a test done, are there others in the system who can provide a sort of surrogate testing of those same issues? That's going to be an important discussion in the weeks, months and years ahead: how do we put that piece in place? Testing is really important in those early years.

The member is right. We see far too many kids, still, who kind of fall through the cracks in the early years. We find them at grades 5 or 6 with quite compelling challenges in reading, writing or numeracy.

[1140]

As you get later into the school years, the challenge of turning around that shortfall is more and more and more difficult — not impossible, but more and more and more difficult. So our best shot at this is kindergarten to grade 4. That's why the testing piece is so important.

Government has committed to bringing some more resources forward to that. Again, I think this goes back to all of our educational partners working together to, first of all, understand the nature of the challenge and, secondly, to really focus our attention on how to address those challenges around testing and effective remediation of any shortfalls in learning areas.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Chilliwack seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: I'd like the House to join me this morning in welcoming to our gallery the Ambassador of Kazakhstan, His Excellency Yerlan Abildaev. He's on his first official visit to British Columbia. Please join me in making him welcome to our precinct.
[ Page 7082 ]

Debate Continued

R. Austin: It's good to note that the minister recognizes the area of grey-area kids. I would comment that my experiences in the school system were such that I noticed that if children have difficulties at the beginning, even in grades 1 and 2, it very soon turns them off the whole education process. Obviously, if you're going to school every day as a very young child and you are getting frustrated and finding it not a pleasant experience, it doesn't make you enthusiastic for the whole learning process. And then, of course, it's downhill from there.

If we don't figure this out by grades 3 or 4, it is hugely challenging not just to remediate the child's specific learning challenges but to actually change their whole philosophical outlook as to what learning is all about. So I'm glad to note that the minister is thinking about adding in resources for testing for the early years.

My question goes to something, though, that the minister has alluded to throughout this morning's discussion, and that is about stakeholders having an important part in having input into the system. So my question is: how is the round table going? Is it meeting regularly? Are the stakeholders sitting down with you as the minister and your staff on a regular basis to discuss some of the issues that we've talked about this morning?

I'd like to know if there's regular participation from all stakeholders. If not, why not? What does the minister think is appropriate in terms of meeting on a regular basis with those people who can have input into the education system?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to address the first part of the member's observations. I think it's really important to highlight where we are seeing some quite remarkable successes in the education system and, I hope, see an opportunity to build on those successes to a broader success across the system, particularly in respect of the early learning — that kindergarten-to-grade-4 period that is, as I've said, so critical in terms of learning.

I want to highlight three school districts — Revelstoke, Fort Nelson and southeast Kootenay — which are performing at international leading levels in terms of the results they are producing in those three school districts. As the member will know, Fort Nelson is certainly not an example of an easy school district, from a demographic perspective, to produce world-leading results.

What they are doing is what we've just been talking about in our discussion, which is identifying barriers to learning at those very early years and then having the culture within the school and within the school district to have a focused remediation of those issues in the early years. The results, I'd say, are spectacular in those districts.

[1145]

I think part of the challenge that we're going to have as a ministry and as a system is trying to ensure that the best practices that can be identified from those districts are ones that, hopefully appropriately, we can see transmitted across the province or translated into other districts and hopefully start to see some comparable successes produced in the 57 other school districts in the province.

The other point the member made initially was this: if we don't catch issues early, they will produce attitudes and behaviours in learning which will be quite counterproductive in later years. The member is absolutely right. That again reinforces why we need to do well in those early years.

Just as an example, I had a recent opportunity to speak to our superintendent in the Revelstoke school district, who is by all accounts doing a wonderful job in terms of leading education in that school district. Revelstoke school district has found that the number of behavioural issues and behavioural problems has almost disappeared with the success in the early learning.

So there is clearly a linkage between behavioural issues in the classroom and in the schools and success in the early years in meeting optimal levels for student learning. For me that's tremendously encouraging in terms of the future. We do want to not only congratulate but build on the success that those school districts have enjoyed in their early learning.

In terms of the round table, since I have been minister, we've been focusing on bilateral discussions with the partners. There has not been a meeting of the round table in the period since I've been minister.

R. Austin: In terms of the minister's comments around those particular school districts that have done very well with kids who are in the early years, I think he's right. If you look at the success of those school districts and if you were to go and look, say, at the data that comes from the early learning project, the HELP project out of UBC that goes and tracks pre-kindergarten children to see what their vulnerabilities are, you'll see, particularly in Revelstoke….

They've done an incredible job in Revelstoke in terms of their early childhood educators. Prior to those kids going into the school system, something remarkable has happened in Revelstoke in terms of what they are able to do to identify children and give them the kinds of supports necessary, so when they arrive in kindergarten, they're already at that level where they are then able to take advantage of it.

I think what we need to do is go beyond the K-to-12 system here and look at communities that are successful in the early years and figure out what it is that those communities are doing prior to school, and try and replicate that around the province. You know, all the evidence now, the scientific evidence, the research
[ Page 7083 ]
that's been done, and a lot of it right here in British Columbia…. I mean, I think we should be proud that we are world leaders.

I see the Chair…. I don't know if she's nodding here, but I know this is an area of her expertise. We have the best researchers in the world in terms of identifying vulnerabilities for preschool kids.

What we need to do now is figure out how we can address those vulnerabilities so that then we can take advantage of that in the school system and not have all those challenges. I think it goes even beyond our responsibilities here as K-to-12 to look at what we can do in the early years.

I guess my final question just before we break for lunch would be…. The minister has been in his job for only, I guess, a couple of months, and the round table hasn't met. Does the minister think that the round table…? Is it his hope that the round table will be meeting in future on a regular basis? A lot of these issues here, I think, can be solved if all these partner groups come together and speak to one another and are not pitted against one another.

Hon. G. Abbott: At risk of continuing this love-in and having collaboration break out again, I do appreciate the member's comments with respect to some of the initiatives that our government and our ministry have undertaken in respect of pre-K learning and StrongStart. The 350 StrongStart centres across the province have been a great success. We believe we can build on that.

[1150]

StrongStart has been a very important element in terms of having early play-based learning that can help us, again, better understand the special challenges that some children may have as they enter kindergarten. So no disagreement with the member on that, and I appreciate his constructive comments in that area.

In terms of the Learning Roundtable, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to form any conclusions at this point about the future value of the Learning Roundtable. My sense of the dynamics of partnerships in the education system currently is that we've got a lot of work to do — as a minister, as a ministry, as a government — in building the relationship with the Teachers Federation.

Indeed, I think there's work to be done in terms of building the relationship among the various partners — the principals and vice-principals with the teachers and the Teachers Federation, the superintendents with the teachers. Across the system I think that we need to do some work in terms of building the relationship.

The idea of bringing all those partners together in round-table discussion, I think, may be something, again, which can be valuable in the future. But from my perspective, the most important thing right now is to start building a culture of respect, a culture of trust and responsibility among the partners. Hopefully, as we progress in that area, we will see a move in the future to the opportunity to return to the round table.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $363,399,000 (continued).

N. Macdonald: This morning is going to be, as I was speaking with the minister, a bit more of a case where we're going to jump from topic to topic. I will be starting with some questions coming out of yesterday's debate, and then we'll be moving to the independent member for Delta South, followed by one of my colleagues from Stikine. I should know these.

[1010]

That will likely take the better part of the morning. Following that, we'll go to Cowichan Valley to continue with the raw log debate.
[ Page 7084 ]

I just want to come back to one of the things that we talked about yesterday. It was when the minister was explaining NSR. He gave me an explanation, and I was just trying to go back and look at what I had heard in the western Canada silviculture association. The question will deal with that.

Basically, with not sufficiently restocked forest lands, I think the minister was explaining how the 715,000 hectares breaks out into current NSR and other types of NSR. Last February, as I was saying, I attended the Western Silviculture Contractors Association annual conference, at which the previous Minister of Forests and Lands at the time said that the area of NSR lands suitable and economic for replanting might be as high as 1.5 million hectares.

Later on one of the ministry staff confirmed that a further 400,000 hectares of NSR were not accounted for in the 715,000 hectares that we talked about yesterday. He also estimated that 300,000 hectares of NSR attributable to small-scale salvage, logging for which licensees and industry have no responsibility to reforest, are also unaccounted for in the 715,000 hectares.

So the total estimate is an additional 700,000 hectares of NSR unaccounted for in the 715,000 hectares. That figure was also noted on the ministry's website under "Key silviculture statistics." This estimate of an additional 700,000 hectares in NSR that the ministry deems economic and feasible to replant makes the total area of NSR around 1.4 million hectares, not the 715,000 hectares.

So my questions to the minister are: can he confirm the additional amount of NSR? And given that not sufficiently restocked is a key indicator of sustainable forest management, does the minister agree that it is totally unacceptable that his ministry does not know the true, actual extent of NSR in the province?

[1015]

Hon. S. Thomson: So just working through the numbers here for the member opposite to make sure…. Yesterday we did talk about the 715,000 hectares, and I think we clarified that — the amount of current NSR that rotates in terms of the responsibility of licence holders. We worked through that.

The number that the member opposite is talking about in terms of the additional potential NSR land — I think it's important to recognize that that is potential. This is the area, you know, that's primarily related to mountain pine beetle impacts. So those are estimates of what may be potentially NSR land after all of the logging is completed.

There are approximately 525,000 to 775,000 hectares. But I think the important point is that this land is still being logged in many cases. So the ability to go in and determine what may or may not be NSR land won't be there until after all of that process is completed — that we've seen the full impact, that it has been logged.

[1020]

We're continuing to work on bioenergy initiatives that take waste out of those areas. So it is simply an estimate of potential, but the work is underway. We'll continue to survey those areas when we can do that appropriately, at the right time. Then if the area is determined to be NSR, it would be put into the inventory or into the process for reforestation. But much of that land, particularly land that is less than 50 percent pine, may not require it. So I think that number that you're talking about, to the member opposite, is currently an estimate at this time.

Work continues. We talked about the resources within our program that are focused on doing the survey work. At some point that work will be done and completed and, potentially, added to the numbers around the NSR land. We're also continuing, as he mentioned, on the small-scale salvage operations. We are continuing to survey and assess those as well. So those numbers that you're referring to are simply estimates at this point.

N. Macdonald: So the minister would agree with his predecessor, then, that it could be as high as 1.4 million hectares to 1.5 million hectares that are NSR — that that's possible?

Hon. S. Thomson: You talked about 400,000 and 300,000. As I pointed out, simply estimates. If you add that to the 715,000, then you come to the number of the 1.5 that we're referring to. But remember that yesterday we talked about the fact that of that 715,000, a significant amount — 480,000 — is under licensees. We talked about the other components of that. So to jump to the point where you say that it goes from here to there, you have to recognize from our beginning conversation around the explanation of what makes up the 715,000 hectares.

N. Macdonald: For laymen, these are complex issues, and trying to get them right is always a little difficult, but I think that even if we take out the 400,000 hectares, we are talking potentially about a vast area of NSR. So just to wrap up with this part of the estimates, I'll just basically repeat the assertions, the conclusions, that the co-critic and I have reached on this set of estimates. I'll give the minister a chance to respond to that, and then we'll turn it over to the independent member for Delta South for some questions.

Basically, at the outset of the estimates debate I reminded the minister of the two key purposes of his ministry set out in the Ministry of Forests and Range Act. The first of those is to assert the financial interests of the government and British Columbians, who are the owners of our vast public forest resources. That's the first. The second is to manage, conserve and protect those same forests in the public interest.

The minister, in answers to revenue questions about minimum stumpage of 25 cents a cubic metre, indicated that that was charged for over 60 percent of all timber.
[ Page 7085 ]
That's equivalent to 25 cents for a telephone pole or $8.75 for a logging truck of lumber. In response to questions about the rate charged for water and log exports, it's evident that the government, in our view, has failed to assert the financial interests of both the government and British Columbians.

Because so often the amount that comes off the land is linked to the investment in the land base, as a result of the compromised revenues, the government is unable to adequately manage, conserve and protect the public forest resources as required by law.

The minister's answers to questions about the adequacy of funding set aside for water stewardship, for forest inventory, for reforestation of NSR forest lands, for research and for treatment of perimeter forest lands and natural resource operations is deeply flawed and may ultimately place, in many people's views, certification of public forests at risk. Also, we would contend that it's not serving the public interest.

[1025]

Essentially, that's the case that we've tried to put before the minister in the debates on the estimates to date. As I say, what we will go to now is a series of questions, after the minister has had a chance to respond. Then we'll move later in the morning into a continued look at the raw log export issue.

With that, I'd just like to give the minister an opportunity to respond.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I appreciated the debate that we've had so far and also appreciated the tenor of the debate. I think we both recognize that this is a very, very important sector, that it is a precious resource that we have under our stewardship here in British Columbia, and a very important resource that contributes significantly to the economy of British Columbia, to the revenues of British Columbia, to rural and forest-dependent communities around the province.

We talked about research and inventory. Just to be clear, we are continuing to fund and support research within the integrated resource management structure that we have. We're continuing to do the inventory work that's required. We're focusing it and prioritizing it on the key areas, as we do the inventory work. That all contributes to the stewardship.

On the certification side, the highest percentage of land in Canada under certification with the certification processes that are in place from the three certification agencies, or three certification processes, third-party approvals of those certification processes….

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

We know that the industry and the companies that are operating on the land recognize the importance of those certification processes in terms of the market, so they continue to focus on their stewardship of this resource.

When we move to the issue around…. We talked about the stumpage. I think it's very important to recognize that the stumpage rate is a market-based system. The bids dictate the price, in reflection of costs. It's updated regularly and, in fact, currently we're going through a process of updating and reviewing those numbers with respect to the market price system in both the coast and the Interior.

Given the economic challenges that we've been through in the industry, the reality is that we've been focusing on harvesting a lot of the poorer-quality wood. Over 60 percent — 67 percent in 2009 and continuing into 2010 — are harvesting in the mountain pine beetle areas, harvesting that poorer-quality wood. So that's obviously reflected in the stumpage pricing system. It is a system that is market-based. It's set to ensure that it reflects the realities and assists in keeping mills and companies in operation.

But as I said, we continue to review that formula based on the market pricing system. Those will be updated as we bring in the new factors and the new factors in the marketplace.

In my view, with the resources that we have in the industry, within the ministry we are continuing to focus strongly on the stewardship responsibilities. We're continuing to do the work in research. We're continuing to do the work in forest health. We're continuing to do the inventory work.

[1030]

We have independent processes with the Forest Practices Board that provide independent oversight to make sure that companies are operating within the standards and the regulations. We have the Forest Range and Practices Act that sets those standards. We have a high degree of compliance to those standards — in all the reviews that have been done, over 90 percent compliance with those standards.

So I would disagree with the member opposite that we have got a situation where we put our resource significantly at risk. We continue to work closely with the industry in making sure that we do steward and manage this resource effectively and appropriately and that we ensure we can continue to support rural and forest-dependent communities in the province and continue to have this industry grow.

We're coming through a very, very difficult situation, as the member opposite knows. We're starting to see recovery in the industry. We've opened or reopened 27 mills since 2009. That's created new employment — 1,600 new jobs directly and additional employment related to those jobs. So we're continuing to work with this industry as it recovers. We're continuing to make sure that we keep that framework in place that helps the industry do that.
[ Page 7086 ]

V. Huntington: I'd like to ask the minister a few short questions, basically relating to comments and questions that were asked of you during the B.C. Wildlife Federation meetings, and I'd like to start with the issue of the e-licensing.

It was mentioned to the minister then that there were substantial problems with the e-licensing for fishery licences and that there was consideration being given in the ministry to advance e-licensing into the hunting licence category.

I'd like to ask if you have taken into consideration the comment that was made to fix the problems with the e-licensing for fishing licences before you move into that system for hunting licences. Is the ministry looking at that problem?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. Yeah, and I recall the question at the Wildlife Federation annual meeting. Just to be clear, firstly, in terms of the current operation of the e-licensing system for fishing licences, it is operating very, very well. In fact, we've had increased participation in the program — a growth of over 6 percent in the number of licences. We've had no complaints about the system. We've haven't had any outages. The system is working very well.

[1035]

The basis or the genesis of the question from the member at the time was related to a policy decision around what processes and what types of initiatives you could support under an e-licensing system. Primarily, if I recall the question, it was related to wanting to be able to use the e-licensing system for additional reservation processes and that sort of thing — something beyond what the current licensing system provides. That is work that has to continue to be taken under consideration.

We have advised the individual who raised that question that at this point we're considering the policy implications about it but we're not moving forward to implement them specifically at this point. We continue to focus on making sure that the existing system works and is robust and that we're not having any complaints or concerns about it. That's the case. The response from the users of the system has been very, very positive and, as I mentioned, is increasing.

In terms of the e-licensing for hunting, we're continuing to work on how we may put a system in place for e-licensing for hunting. We're going to learn from the experience in the e-licensing for fishing. We continue to work with that and are looking forward to potentially bringing in an e-licensing system for hunting in the future. But just to be clear, the experience that we've had on the fishing licence side of it will be very, very valuable and useful for us as we move forward in consideration of that initiative.

V. Huntington: I think it's important to know that the question also related to what was perceived as a lack of ability to control the numbers effectively, who were obtaining the e-licences. That was the concern related to moving into the system of e-licensing with the hunting.

There was also the issue raised about asking again whether the minister will be reprinting the hunting synopsis and guidelines. The minister may not be aware that in my riding hunting is a significant recreational activity, shall we say, and it's important also to the agricultural community.

I have received many representations that the synopsis, as it stands, doesn't include parks but that we're issuing more licences. I think you mentioned up to 94,000 this year, hoping to get up to 100,000 resident licences — all of which are being issued now without a guideline and without a synopsis available. There is great concern about that within the community, certainly within Delta. I wonder if the minister would again consider a reprint of that synopsis.

[1040]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question again. As I acknowledged at the Wildlife Federation annual meeting when the question was raised, it was an error on our part that the total number of synopses that were printed for the two-year period were fully distributed in the first year. I think it's important to recognize that when those were distributed it was well known that those were two-year synopses, so all people who got licences in that year when the synopsis first came out were aware of that and hopefully have held on to the synopsis and still have them available, knowing that it's a two-year synopsis.

The synopsis is available on the website. We work actively with the Wildlife Federation, with the members in the Wildlife Federation, their membership, to make sure that they know that's available. We work with the retailers, the shops, to point that out so that people can access it.

Currently at this time, with the budget challenges that we face within the ministry, we're not contemplating a reprint of the synopsis at this point. Our focus is, as new licensees come in, to make sure that they know it's available and to assist them in accessing the synopsis on the website. That's the current strategy related to this synopsis. It is for two years.

We will be moving into the next process in developing the next synopsis, and we will make sure that when we do it this time, we don't inadvertently send them all out in the first year and run into the same problem again.

V. Huntington: Well, I thank the minister for the answer. However, you have a very large hunting community that is fairly upset about their lack of access to these guide-
[ Page 7087 ]
lines, and I don't see that a reprint to cover the remainder of this year would break the bank in the ministry. I think that you have a client base here that is controlled and licensed, and I think they should have access if they feel the need for these guidelines in a printed format.

Moving on, one other issue that came up at the Wildlife Federation — and again, spoken of to me by residents in my riding — is the lack of the ongoing inventorying of the wildlife resource and at the same time increasing the numbers of hunters out there in the community. There was a call for a real need for baseline data, and the ministry no longer has that data in a current form.

Has the minister taken those comments to heart, and is he working with his ministry to find the wherewithal to increase the number of inventories being undertaken in the resource area?

[1045]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. Inventory is an important part of the process. I think it's important to recognize a number of things. We continue to have resources available for inventory work, and we're focusing them on high-priority species in the process — so caribou, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose species in certain areas. We're continuing to do the inventory work.

With the budget and fiscal challenges that we have, we haven't got the same amount of resources available for that currently as we have had directly in the past, but that doesn't mean important inventory work is not continuing. We've reached out, and we're working in partnership, in many cases, with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Particularly, they have stepped forward and assisted in inventory work.

Additionally, a very, very important part of doing the inventory work is actually keeping records and accurate information in terms of the harvest of those species. That's in terms of the wildlife biologists. That's a very important part of the analysis and the work they do. We have a very robust system in place that reports the harvest levels for all the species, and that's put into the process when we're doing the decisions around allocation and hunts.

While we recognize that we would like to do some more work in those areas, we continue to focus on the high priorities. We continue to work with our partners in addressing that. It is an issue that continues to be an active discussion with the Wildlife Federation.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that answer.

I'd like to move to a more general issue, and it's that of water stewardship, particularly water stewardship in the far north, where there is so much oil and gas activity.

I recognize that at the moment the Oil and Gas Commission has the permitting authority for withdrawal of water to aid the fracturing industry. But the amount of water that that Oil and Gas Commission is permitting is unbelievable. There is no ministry in this government monitoring what is going on up there, effectively. The Oil and Gas Commission, I'm assuming, does not have expertise in the area of water withdrawal.

Last April 2010 there were permits that had been issued for the withdrawal of water from over 540 source points, permitting up to 62 million gallons of water a day. This is an interruption with the way it's being used by the oil and gas industry, and it's an interruption of the water cycle itself. I think that the ministry…. I'm asking whether the minister has any plans to have his industry step in to take a look at the entire water stewardship concern in the far north.

[1050]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you for the question. Our ministry is continuing to work very closely with the Oil and Gas Commission and the Ministry of Energy and Mines in addressing this issue. The Oil and Gas Commission, as you know, is under the responsibility of the Minister of Energy and Mines, so I would suggest you may want to canvass that question more directly with the ministry.

Our water stewardship branch is responsible for the decisions around allocation. So we recognize that there is a concern that has developed there. We're continuing to work with the Oil and Gas Commission, with the industry, with the Canadian association of agriculture producers on those issues.

It's important to note that the industry is working under a principle of reusing water, taking water from deep-well saline aquifers, so it's not affecting groundwater use. They understand the need to make sure that they keep a focus on doing that. They have both an environmental and an economic incentive to do that.

Just to be clear, our ministry and the water stewardship branch continue in discussions with the Oil and Gas Commission and the Ministry of Energy and Mines on this issue.

V. Huntington: This is an atrocious situation that has developed up there. We're the only province that doesn't control the water stewardship by government. It's a captured agency that is permitting these withdrawals, with no daily oversight or approvals from the government of British Columbia. It's an unsustainable, irresponsible situation, in my mind, that has developed up there.

There's no control of the wastewater and no requirements for treatment that I'm aware of. It's expensive to treat it. The backflow from most wells amounts to up to sometimes 60 percent of the water that's being used. I don't know what the treatment requirements are and if the treatment requirements are being done by the Oil and Gas Commission, by your ministry or by the
[ Page 7088 ]
Ministry of Environment. I just hope that this ministry gets a handle on this issue.

The industry ought not to be mapping the aquifers, and that's what's happening right now. I think we're just throwing caution to the wind by allowing self-regulatory bodies to look after the stewardship of the water resource that is so desperately needed by that industry, who will go to any length at all to obtain the water they need. It should be controlled firmly by your ministry, I believe.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In that regard, I have a number of questions, but I'll ask one other, and that's my concern that the ministry…. I'd like to know how the ministry meshes with the environmental assessment process.

[1055]

Right throughout your service plan and other documents, you're talking about balancing the cumulative footprints with the outcomes; considering the environmental, economic and social factors of an application; attracting investment while upholding standards. But nowhere does it discuss the criteria — the number of scientists that were involved in looking at these cumulative effects and how to assess them or the factors that are taking precedence as you're looking at them.

Over and over again we see, through the service plan, an interest in developing the economic value of these resources, and yet we have no solid criteria upon which you're balancing that development. I'd like to know, if your industry is now basically responsible for the environmental impact of these applications, how it meshes with the environmental assessment process and where your ministry stops and the assessment process begins.

Hon. S. Thomson: I just wanted to respond a little bit further to the previous question that the member opposite raised around the water impacts, particularly in the shale industry. I think that it would be an appropriate question for you to address with Energy and Mines. I'm aware and I know that a team within that ministry is looking at a comprehensive water strategy as part of that process. We'll be inputting into that process, but I think that's an important point to recognize.

Just in terms of the question that was asked. Two things that I want to say. I have said and I continue to say that the establishment of the Natural Resource Operation structure to bring it into one project, one process is about creating certainty, about creating a system that looks at those cumulative impacts to make sure they're all taken into consideration. It is about advancing and streamlining the decision processes. It is not about compromising environmental standards at all.

We continue to have processes in place that make sure that those standards are applied. Ministry of Environment continues to set the standards. Ministry of Environment continues to have the EAO environmental assessment process. We feed into that.

In terms of the cumulative impacts, it was one of the reasons that the Natural Resource Operation structures have been put in place — to make sure that when those decisions are made, all of those factors are taken into place.

[1100]

We have an interagency group working on putting the criteria or the structures in place to be able to do that in a stronger way than we currently do as part of our new responsibility. So that's work that continues.

Do we have all the pieces in place yet? No. It's work that we need to continue to work on, but clearly one of the objectives of putting this structure in place was to do just that. Also, it's important to recognize that in the structure that we've got….

With the process that we have under the natural resources deputy ministers' board…. It brings all of the resource ministers together in those processes for strategic direction with the environment and land use committee of cabinet that includes all the resource ministers, including the Minister of Environment. We make sure that those environmental standards are taken into consideration in all of that decision-making.

Clearly, you know, the process is about getting streamlined, integrated decision-making made, but it's not about compromising the environmental standards and the inference that this whole process is just designed to get approvals and projects through as quickly as we can and as many as we can. That's not the case.

This is about getting the right projects through the process and in a way that recognizes all of those values on a land base that is becoming increasingly complex. It's about the right projects, and that's a message that we have provided to industry. It's a message that we provided to environmental organizations in the province, and many of the environmental organizations that I have met with both previously, when we had the stand-alone Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, and currently, support and agree with the objective of what we're trying to achieve here.

V. Huntington: One last comment before the member for Stikine rises.

I really would like to thank the minister for that answer. I'm sure that everybody in this province is as hopeful as he is that this system that you're putting together works and that it does do the right thing for the people of British Columbia.

One of the issues that I would just like to bring to the minister's attention is my personal concern that there is such potential for conflict between the enforcement side and the licensing side of the ministry.

The ministry is moving, to some degree, to self-regulation and self-compliance within your structure,
[ Page 7089 ]
and you want to cooperate with business and industry in that regard. However, we've seen it before, and I hope the minister takes a good, hard look at the issue, because the conflicts that can arise between your enforcement people and your licensing people, especially if they interact in any way, can be serious. It's something that the ministry should always be cognizant of.

Again, I thank the minister for his answers, and I appreciate the time.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister and to all of the staff for supporting the minister here today.

I'm going to canvass the activities and responsibilities associated with the mining sector that this ministry covers, and we have lots of ground to cover. I'll try to be as direct as I can in my questions. Unfortunately, we don't have as much time as we need because we haven't sat in the Legislature for an awfully long time.

My first question is the number of full-time- equivalents in relation to mining and mineral responsibilities within this ministry. What is the number of full-time-equivalents associated with those responsibilities?

[1105]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can provide the number to the member opposite, but I want to put that number in context first, just to make sure the member opposite understands the current structure of which we're operating on.

Initially we had a number of staff come across, when we were Natural Resource Operations, on the mining side of it. With the recent reorganization, some of those have gone back to what would now be under Energy and Mines. Currently within our NRO operations I'm advised that we have 18 staff working specifically in the mining component of Natural Resource Operations.

But what's more important to recognize is, firstly, that we operate collaboratively across ministries as part of the model that we're working, so you need to look at the resources that are collectively within our ministry and collectively within Energy and Mines. We're working on an MOU between our ministry and the Ministry of Energy and Mines in terms of how that collaborative work takes place to make sure we can focus the required resources on this growing and important industry.

Additionally, one of the key factors in establishing NRO as an integrated group was to make sure that we could shift resources where required within the ministry. So we are continuing to work with people in the regions and people in the staff to train up and develop skill sets that can assist the existing component of staff there to make sure we have the resources. That's one of the real benefits of this structure — to be able to shift those resources and staff as needed.

So we continue to do that work. That's 18 current staff. I just wanted to make sure the member opposite took that number in the context of the overall structure of the ministry.

D. Donaldson: Given the responsibilities that have moved into NRO, Natural Resource Operations, when it comes to mining and mineral activities and responsibilities, do these 18 full-time-equivalents represent a decrease from previous responsibilities under other ministries?

[1110]

Hon. S. Thomson: Currently when you look at the resources that we have within our ministry…. When it came across previously under NRO, we identified additional resources for the mining component. With the recent reorganization, as I said, some of those resources are within the Ministry of Energy and Mines. But overall, there has actually been an increase in the staff resources that are specifically dedicated to this sector, when you take it in combination between the two ministries.

We also recognize that we have a sector in British Columbia right now that is growing significantly — other major projects to come on stream, significant increases in exploration activity. So we're continuing to work collaboratively to identify the resources that are required, as I said earlier, looking at how we make sure that we have additional resources within the people that we have within our current ministry that can assist with this. Where there are additional resources required specifically, we'll look as we do our planning in terms of human resources to make sure that we have those people available within our ministry.

Currently, there are additional resources available for this sector than there were previously.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister's comments yesterday were that the budget cuts in the ministry were as a result of workforce adjustment attrition within the staffing from across all agencies and divisions that have been brought into the new ministry. So based on his answer, those attrition rates must be in other areas of responsibility, yet he says other areas within the ministry are supposed to contribute to the mineral aspect. That seems a bit murky.

What I'd like to ask the minister is…. Pierre Gratton, the president of the Mining Association of B.C., in his presentation to the Finance Committee in the fall said in relation to the cuts, "We feel that it's gotten to a point where it's compromising their ability" — the government's ability — "to get permits done. It's for government to figure out, but we have recognized now that really, frankly, the cuts have gone too far" in relation to resources.

Does the minister believe that there are adequate staff and resources in the ministry to deal with, as he said, the growing demand for mineral-related activities?
[ Page 7090 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thanks for the question. We recognize that we've got, as I said earlier and the member acknowledged, a growing sector, significant increases in activity. That's why we're continuing to work collaboratively with both our ministry and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to identify those resources that are needed to make sure that we can address this priority.

[1115]

Early on it was identified as a priority in our hiring processes, as we are able to fill positions. That's been identified. We know we do have some pressures in specific areas, particularly in the northeast.

Again, I want to go back to…. That's one of the reasons why we have the structure that we currently have within the NRO operations, where we can focus staff resources, when we have the opportunity to do so, into those priority areas; where we can move staff within our system to identify the backlog that may be in some areas — to address those issues.

One of our keys is to make sure that we have the resources available for those priority areas. That's one of the benefits or the beauties of the current structure — in order to be able to do that. Also, just to say that we are in regular meetings, regular consultation with the mining association, with AMEBC , around looking at those areas.

Both of those organizations support the structure that we have in place, support the objective that we're trying to achieve. We're working with them, and we continue to adjust as we get our new structure implemented but are clearly working very closely with the major industry associations.

D. Donaldson: What would the minister…? Given the growing sector that we're seeing and the resource pressures he described, what would adequate levels of funding be for staffing in his ministry to deal with this growing sector?

Hon. S. Thomson: There is no specific number. The important point to recognize, as I stressed, is the structure of the ministry that we currently have within our ministry and in cooperation with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

I just wanted to make sure that the member opposite understood the division of responsibilities within the two ministries but to reiterate that we work collaboratively across ministries to address those pressure areas. That's in terms of making sure that we can shift resources within our current structure, that we can train up staff within our structure to focus on those priority areas and move them in, because it is clearly a priority.

It's a sector now that is generating significant additional resources for the province. It's generating significant additional economic activity in the province and tremendous potential opportunity going forward.

Just to be clear, the Ministry of Energy and Mines has the responsibility for mine inspections, permitting policy, geoscience, and mineral titles. Our ministry provides the coordinating, the multiple authorizations, First Nations consultation, project management and the regional administrative services to government functions at the mining division. So there is a division of responsibility, but it's shared between the two.

[1120]

As I said earlier, we're working on an MOU between our ministry and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to make sure that we have the appropriate processes between the two ministries. But clearly, the focus is on making sure that we can streamline our operations; provide efficient, integrated decision-making that provides us additional resources to be able, when that's achieved and implemented, to shift the resources into those priority areas. That's what we're going to continue to do.

D. Donaldson: I'm glad the minister brought up reorganization. Here's a comment from the former Minister of Mines that happened after the reorganization. He said: "The fundamental problem facing the natural resource ministries is that they're underfunded. We work the heck out of…the employees…we don't have enough funds within these ministries to get the permits out the door, to develop policy, to deal with the stakeholders, to do the work that actually leads to the majority of the revenue that comes into government."

The minister talks about streamlining. My question to him is: does the current budget have enough in his ministry to get the permits out the door, to develop policy and to deal with stakeholders in an efficient manner?

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to go back and reiterate the objective behind the establishment of the natural resource operation structure and the realignment of responsibilities within the ministries under this new structure. It is, clearly, to address the issue that the member raised.

With the current fiscal challenges in the province…. As we focus resources on the critical services of health care, education and social services, we have recognized the challenges, and the response is the new structure. It's about streamlining the processes. It's about integrated decision-making. It's about finding better ways to do things. That's clearly the objective. It is assisting us in meeting just the challenges that the member talked about.

We are working very closely with our other resource ministries through the structure I've talked about before, to make sure we do that. We're continuing to focus resources in the priority areas to deal with the permitting and authorization processes, and again, as I mentioned to the member for Delta South, without compromising the environmental standards.
[ Page 7091 ]

So clearly, this is a response to make sure that we can do the operations of the natural resource sector, recognizing those increasingly complex decision-making processes on our land base, the competing interests — to make sure that we can do that in the most efficient way, recognizing the resource challenges that we have within the ministry.

We continue to do that work. We continue to work very closely with our other ministries. We continue to work very closely with industry, and in doing that, one of the things that I've told industry clearly is to make sure they communicate with us and through me as minister on where we see the bottlenecks and the constraints developing so that we can make sure we move those resources into those areas right away. They continue to do that. We have a very good working relationship with the industry associations, and they continue to support the model and the objective that we're trying to achieve here.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer from the minister, although I don't think he got to the point of: does the current budget have enough resources to get the permits out the door in a timely manner?

[1125]

Following on that line of questioning again. The president of the Mining Association of B.C., in his presentation to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, talked about the regional geologist's role in Prince George. Historically, he says, that's a role that helps in the permitting process. Could the minister inform whether the position has been filled — the regional geologist position in Prince George?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. I don't have that answer specifically at hand, but I will undertake to get you the answer and will provide it to you as quickly as possible.

D. Donaldson: I thank the minister for that. He is unable to inform whether that position has been filled. Does he know how long it's been vacant?

Hon. S. Thomson: I am advised that it has been vacant for a little while. The deputy advises me that he's aware that it has been vacant. In terms of exact amount of time, we'll provide that response in response to the question previous.

I think that it is also important to recognize that these are critical positions, critical skill sets. One of the challenges that we have as government and as a ministry in recruiting those positions is competition with the private sector. As the industry is growing and expanding, as we've talked about before, they are also looking for a pool of talent and people in the industry. So that's one of the challenges we have in immediately filling positions.

The recruitment process takes longer than it may have in a different labour market situation in this sector. It's also one of the areas, in our discussions with the sector, that they've identified in the future that we need to work on, as the resource sector recovers — the issue around labour, the labour market and the talent and the skill sets that we're going to need within these sectors, both within government and within the industry.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I agree. These positions are critical. As backed up and supported by the president of the Mining Association of B.C., my understanding is that the position has been vacant for close to a year, and now we also have a vacancy in the regional geologist position in Smithers due to retirement.

So here we have the northwest part of the province and the northeast part of the province without regional geologists, and the government has had a long time to plan succession in these cases. The minister points out that mining is a $3.7 billion industry in B.C., so one would think that if you were looking at budget estimates and looking ahead, a good management technique would be to manage for these to ensure that gaps don't happen that will affect the bottom line for the province.

Would the minister be able to inform when the regional geologist position in Smithers will be filled?

[1130]

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm getting some information here that clarifies the situation. The member opposite is correct. We currently have two vacancies, one in Prince George and one in Smithers. The Smithers position became vacant on April 9. The job is posted. We're currently screening applicants in that process and hope that we will have a successful applicant out of that process.

With respect to the position in Prince George, the member opposite is correct. It has been vacant for quite a longer period of time. The job was posted. There were a number of applicants. A qualified applicant for the position was not identified out of that process. We are currently hoping — and working with the application process in Smithers — that we may be able to deal with both of those situations in that process.

In the meantime we continue to work with industry around how we address that situation and those positions. Again, it's about making sure that we can support those positions with the existing resources we have in the ministry until we get the positions filled successfully.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. I'll move on to another area of questioning, and it relates to the aboriginal consultation and coordination function that's listed under the responsibilities of Natural Resource Operations. According to the Taseko minerals website, they are the proponents of the Prosperity mine. According to their website, on March 17, 2011, Taseko has resubmitted the
[ Page 7092 ]
Prosperity mine proposal to the federal government. Has the province received this submission?

Hon. S. Thomson: For this process and file, the lead ministry with responsibility for this is the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and those questions would be appropriately canvassed in the estimates for that minister.

D. Donaldson: The aboriginal consultation and coordination function of this ministry, then, relates to what?

[1135]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, our ministry does not hold the lead in this process. Our responsibility within this is that if it moves into a provincial process, whatever that may be, then we would be part of the team that would assist in the coordination role for that. MARR sets the coordination policy; our ministry helps coordinate that consultation process. Further, if a project is to proceed, then our ministry does all the coordination and consultation work around permits and authorizations that would be required. But that certainly is into the future.

D. Donaldson: Well, given the importance of this project to the economy — this is what we hear from Williams Lake and some of the other proponents — then I would suggest that a coordinating function would be to actually request the submission that has gone to the federal government, especially in light of the fact that in her first meeting with the Prime Minister, Premier Clark said: "I'm interested in making sure we find a way to get that mine going in British Columbia."

I would think that given the importance of the subject matter, this ministry would take a role in trying to find out what Taseko Mines is up to in their resubmission.

We have very limited time left. As I said, there's a lot of area to cover in this ministry's responsibilities, so I apologize if I'm jumping around a lot here. Again, it's a function of time.

I'm going to jump to another topic. That is small mines, which is under this ministry, and a specific question around aggregates. There's a company called Interoute that's applying for a rock-crushing operation permit between Trail and Castlegar in an area called Fairview. The aggregate composition there has a high uranium content. Who is responsible for testing the uranium content in this kind of permitting process?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the question relates to a very specific project, I'm not aware of all the specifics of that project. I'll take the question under notice or advisement and respond to the member opposite with the specific answers to his question.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. We'll be looking forward to receiving that response.

I'll broaden up the issue, then, to a more general level. Given that this government has imposed a moratorium on uranium exploration, when does an aggregate operation become a uranium operation? What are the criteria? What's the threshold? Is it on a revenue basis, or is it on a tonnage basis? Can the minister please elaborate on that?

[1140]

Hon. S. Thomson: I just want to again make sure we understand the respective roles of the ministries under this structure. This is a policy function in terms of that specific policy. That policy in this area is the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and I would suggest that question be canvassed in those estimates.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. For certain we'll be canvassing that one with the appropriate minister then.

I'll do a regulatory question, then, and I see by the government's website that regulation is part of NRO when it comes to aggregates. This is again a broad question. It's not necessarily in relation to a specific case. It's not talking about the previous case.

Under the Ministry of Mines, my understanding was that with respect to gravel pit and gravel pit boundaries, the only mechanism that is judged by the Ministry of Mines around permitting is the health and safety issues surrounding those pits.

Does the current Ministry of Natural Resource Operations have the ability to reject an aggregate application based on criteria such as species that qualify under the endangered species act — for instance, bull trout?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to respond, for the permitting of an aggregate operation, it requires a number of permits — a Land Act permit and a mines permit — and those permits can take into account environmental considerations.

Chair, noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175