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)

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 5

[ Page 7151 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Today I rise to introduce some very special guests who have travelled here to join us in the gallery. They are members of the Yale First Nation, which is located in the lower Fraser Valley. I would like to first acknowledge Chief Robert Hope of the Yale First Nation, who is here with us on the floor of the assembly. [Applause.]

Earlier I was honoured to act as emcee at an event to mark today's introduction of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act. I'd like to single out three very remarkable young members of the Yale First Nation: Talon Coghill, age 12; Dyllan James, age 14; and Megan Hope, age 17. These young people represent the future of Yale First Nation and of British Columbia.

Earlier today they spoke about what treaty means to them and placed some personal objects, along with copies of their speeches, in a time capsule to be returned to Yale First Nation. There, all the children in the community will also have the opportunity to contribute personal items to the time capsule.

Also with us in the visitors' gallery today is Sophie Pierre, chief commissioner, along with fellow commissioners Dave Haggard and Celeste Haldane of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Joining them is Mark Smith with the BCTC.

From the First Nations Summit we are joined by Dan Smith, First Nations Summit Task Group; Leah George-Wilson, First Nations Summit co-chair; and Ray Harris, First Nations Summit co-chair.

I want to congratulate Chief Hope and the members of Yale First Nation, and I am extremely pleased that they are able to join us today. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is no one that you would not recognize in your office, hon. Speaker, going through drawers and such, and a good friend of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as well. My constituent Kody Bell is with us. Would the House please make him very, very, very welcome.

Hon. H. Bloy: I would like to welcome to the House today family members, advocates and others who support British Columbians living with developmental disabilities. Frank and open discussion is a hallmark of democratic institutions like this House here and is an essential part of finding solutions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: Friends of mine are visiting in the gallery today. Dennis Adamson and Sequel Adamson, his daughter, are visiting to witness the introduction of the Yale treaty. Dennis is the electoral director area B for the Fraser Valley regional district. His daughter Sequel is a grade 5 student at C.E. Barry Middle School in Hope, and she's on the honour roll. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

K. Heed: I ask that you join me in welcoming three constituents from Vancouver-Fraserview: Cathy Grant, Ed Harkness and John Watt.

M. Karagianis: A constituent of mine has joined us in the gallery today. He actually is the cohort of the aforementioned Kody Bell, an avid fan of question period and debates. I'd like you to welcome Mark Bridges.

Hon. M. McNeil: Joining us in the House today are two of my constituents from Vancouver–False Creek, Andy Hedley and Michael Mather. They are here along with other representatives from the B.C. Allied Golf Association. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

D. Black: Two of my friends have been visiting the Legislature today. I would like to introduce them. They're Catherine Bell and Roger Kishi. Catherine Bell served with me in the House of Commons.

[1340]

She was the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North. She has now changed careers and has opened a restaurant in Courtenay called Zocalo Café. I understand it's a terrific restaurant. I would ask the members to please make them welcome today.

D. Horne: It's with pleasure that I introduce a close friend of mine who is here in the gallery today. Pam Hiller is here for the B.C. teachers institute, and I hope the House will make her truly welcome.

C. Trevena: In the precincts today there was a very special school visit from my constituency, from Kyuquot Elementary Secondary School. I think everybody has heard me talk about Kyuquot. It's, I think, the second most remote part of my constituency. They've come a long, long way to see how our Legislature works.

Joining the 23 grade 1s to 6s were Virginia Vincent, Larissa Hanson, Devon Hansen, Lisa Morrison, Jen Manuel, Nick Caumanns, Ron Chidley, Wayne Vincent Sr. and Priscilla Jack. I hope the House will make them very welcome.
[ Page 7152 ]

Hon. B. Penner: It is truly a terrific day. I have the honour to represent and introduce today a number of constituents. With the introduction of the legislation to enable the completion of the Yale First Nation treaty, a number of constituents have travelled from the Fraser Canyon and the upper Fraser Valley.

Already the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has introduced Dennis Adamson and his very bright daughter Sequel. In addition, a previous electoral area representative from the Fraser Valley regional district, Terry Raymond, is here today as well.

I'd like the House to make him welcome, as well as all the members of the Yale First Nation, including Chief Robert Hope.

N. Simons: I'd like to echo the words of the Minister of Social Development in welcoming people representing families with members who have developmental disabilities or disabilities. In particular, I'd like to welcome Cathy Grant, Ed Harkness, John Watt and Maria Squance from B.C. FamilyNet; Dawn Steele from Moms on the Move; Pat Danforth from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Bob Wilson from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union; along with family advocates Allan McNeely, Wendy Lilley and Sandra Philips.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend from Prince George, a constituent of the Solicitor General but someone who constantly watches question period every day. I'd like opposition members as well as government members to make sure that Mr. Dennis Jackson has a great show today.

D. Routley: I have two introductions today. Joining us in the precinct are 42 grade 4 students from Georgia Avenue community school in Nanaimo with their teacher Melody Botten and, I believe, ten parents. They have had a wonderful time with a tour, and I was able to speak to the kids. So I'd like the members to help me make them all welcome to the precinct.

Secondly, I'd like the House to help me welcome my friend Kurt Knock. He's visiting us from Duncan. He's actually a constituent of the member for Cowichan Valley but a good friend of my partner Leanne and mine. Kurt is a longtime cyclist and markets his own bicycles, Everti Bicycles, but he's also a very accomplished photographer. Kurt Knock Photography is the business that he runs.

He's looking to expand his talents, and he's ready to take pictures of all the members, particularly the members opposite. I would like the House to help me make Kurt very welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting the House today are 31 grade 5 students from Holy Cross Elementary School in Burnaby, with nine adults. Would the House help me to welcome them.

D. Donaldson: I don't often have a chance to welcome school groups from a thousand kilometres north of here, but today the Kispiox community school class is visiting. Kispiox village is part of the Gitxsan Nation. They welcome students from all backgrounds. Their teacher Brian Muldon is here as well. Would the House make them welcome.

[1345]

L. Reid: Hon. Members, in the House today I am pleased to welcome 15 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the 12th B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week, expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary system. They are joined by three of their peers who are returning alumni acting in the role of facilitator — Ms. Gaye Burton-Coe, Mr. Bud Linquist and Mr. Robert Boates.

I trust you'll take this opportunity to meet with them at tomorrow's luncheon hosted by the hon. Minister of Education. Would you please make them feel very welcome.

Point of Order
(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Monday morning, May 16, the member for Cariboo North rose on a point of order pertaining to the conduct of private members' time and particularly directed his attention to Standing Order 25A. On raising his point of order, the hon. member asked for guidance from the Chair as to three questions.

(1) What is the spirit and the intent of the private members' time?

(2) What process is to be used to determine which MLAs get time?

(3) Are speakers lists necessary for respondents, or do these lists undermine the spirit of the intent of private members' time?

Firstly, there have been several Speaker's decisions on the nature and intent of private members' statements, and I refer hon. members to the fourth edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 60 and 61. Basically, the intent was to provide a definite and certain time on Orders of the Day when members other than cabinet ministers could bring to the attention of the House matters of concern which did not fall into other proceedings of the House.

The second question the hon. member has put to the Chair is the relation to the process used to determine which MLAs get time during private members' statements. Standing Order 25A(2) suggests that such
[ Page 7153 ]
a determination is made by the Speaker after drawing lots. When this standing order was first used, it was discovered that random drawing of lots often produced an undesirable result, in that four random choices could produce the effect that all private members' statements on a particular day would go to one party or another.

Accordingly, the practice developed that the designated members on private members' day were chosen by agreement between the House Leaders, and this process has worked admirably over the years that Standing Order 25 has been in place. It was hoped that with the advent of independent members, their turn to be chosen for private members would be negotiated in the same spirit of fairness that has prevailed over the years.

As Speaker, I would hope that the existing processes would be continued and that independent members would be part of the process and would be prepared to accept the decision by the House Leaders of the majority parties. The Chair would suggest that the overriding principle is that of fairness. I have every reason to believe that the principle will be observed in allocating the time for private members' statements.

The final question put to the Chair was whether or not speakers lists are necessary or do they undermine the spirit and the intent of private members' time. In relation to this last question, it seems to the Chair that respondents lists add some certainty to the House proceedings and also provide time for preparation of replies when appropriate. Once the subject matter of the statement is known, research can be commenced on the reply, thereby adding, hopefully, to the quality of debate on the particular subject.

Failing this consensual approach to the allocation of time in private members' statements, an arbitrary mathematical decision could be devised, bearing in mind the number of members and the number of independent members.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation
Final Agreement Act

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I am honoured today to introduce Bill 11, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

[1350]

This landmark legislation will enable the Yale final agreement, British Columbia's third modern treaty, to reach the Legislature under the framework of B.C.'s treaty process, which was established in 1992.

Chief Hope, whom I introduced a few minutes ago, has been at the treaty table since the beginning and has worked tirelessly to bring this treaty to his people. In fact, Chief Hope is here carrying out the work of his father, the late elder and Chief, Lawrence Hope, who was also a great champion of this treaty and who I think we can all agree would be very proud of his son and his people today.

The Premier and I were very privileged to attend an event with Chief Hope and members of the Yale First Nation earlier today recognizing this historic day. I was particularly moved by the children and young people of Yale who joined us today. Their spirit and enthusiasm is infectious, and I was struck by their optimism for their future under this treaty.

The treaty removes the Yale First Nation from the federal Indian Act. It provides the Yale First Nation with self-government powers that will allow them to design and deliver programming in a way that best supports the Yale community and their families. This treaty converts the uncertainty regarding Yale First Nation's aboriginal rights and title into defined treaty rights. It establishes ownership and management of lands and resources within Yale's traditional territory, and it provides land and financial resources so Yale can create economic opportunities and jobs for their families.

Chief Hope has described treaties as having the potential to be the single largest catalyst for economic development, partnership and improved governance in British Columbia. It is an extraordinary moment for the Yale people and all British Columbians, because we all benefit when local economies flourish, when neighbours support one another and when there is stability on the land base.

I am honoured to bring this settlement legislation to the chamber, and I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206 — Election Transparency
Amendment Act, 2011

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Election Transparency Amendment Act, 2011.

B. Simpson: I move that this bill be introduced and read now for a first time.
[ Page 7154 ]

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: The Election Transparency Amendment Act legislates the reporting of political donations during a general election. It will enable voters to make a more informed choice when they mark a ballot, as it requires candidates, constituency associations and political parties to submit ongoing reports to Elections B.C. during the election period.

The first comprehensive donation report will be required on the tenth day of a general election, and all donations received from the last public report by Elections B.C. would be disclosed. Thereafter candidates, constituency associations and political parties would be required to update their donors list on a daily basis.

This act will ensure that the public will be able to see which organizations and individuals are donating to political candidates and political parties prior to making their choice on election day.

During the recent leadership contests of both political parties, leadership candidates publicly reported who donated to their campaigns prior to party members selecting a leader. This level of transparency is laudable. The Election Transparency Amendment Act would simply extend this right to know to all voters during general elections.

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

Bill M206, Election Transparency Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND
SERVICES FOR EAST KOOTENAY FAMILIES

B. Bennett: One of the most important things that we can do as MLAs here in the House is to give voice to our constituents who can't be here to speak for themselves, particularly where you have a group of constituents who are working towards a noble goal.

I'm speaking today on behalf of a small non-profit society from Cranbrook in the East Kootenay known as Community Connections. These individuals are mostly volunteers. They're led by a woman by the name of Gwen Noble, and they work with children in our region.

[1355]

They're involved with things like assessment, child care resource and referral, early intervention, preschool, supported child development, infant development, pediatricians, Children First, developmental disability services, mental health services — just some of the things that they work with and services that are delivered across the region.

Most of the regions of the province have a coordinated network of child health and development services, and parents can go in and find the services they need in one place, as opposed to having to scramble and try and figure out the maze of services that we have.

We'd like, in the East Kootenay, to emulate communities like Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Smithers, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton and their child health centres.

That's where Gwen Noble and her hard-working volunteers come in. Gwen and a small group of dedicated volunteers have been working away tirelessly, acquiring a good building, improving that building, raising money. Community Connections has so far raised $350,000 from our community.

Families will stay in rural communities when they know there's access to services for their children. The promise of a new child health and development centre in Cranbrook has already helped us attract two new pediatricians to our area. We need to retain them. We also need to attract more specialists for our children.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with government and with Community Connections to ensure that rural families get the support they need in the East Kootenay.

DOUKHOBOR YOUTH FESTIVAL

K. Conroy: This coming weekend the 64th annual Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ Union of Youth Festival will be celebrated. Every year this festival attracts upwards of 1,500 people to the Brilliant Cultural Centre just outside of Castlegar for a weekend full of culture, song, prayer, food and fun. The first festival was held in 1948 in Grand Forks on the Easter weekend. Since then the festival has grown significantly, moving to the Brilliant Cultural Centre and held on the May long weekend.

This year's theme is "Strengthening Doukhobor connections: forging unity, celebrating culture and sharing hope." The three-day festival kicks off Saturday morning, followed by the ever-popular Saturday evening variety program. On Sunday the festival begins with a traditional Doukhobor prayer meeting, followed by performances leading into the late afternoon. The festival wraps up on Monday with a fun-filled family sports day, including children's games, softball and family picnics.

Youth from across the region, the province and in fact the country of Doukhobor descent gather to perform in a number of ways. These include choirs sharing their a cappella songs in both English and Russian, individual performers and skits, to name just a few. As well, they participate in discussions related to their
[ Page 7155 ]
theme. Dignitaries from all walks of life bring greetings throughout the weekend.

It is a great opportunity to share the mouth-watering meals the Doukhobors have become famous for — borscht, pyrahi, lapsha, pickles, atvar, homemade bread and always-delicious pies.

It's a moving experience to be in the cultural centre with its incredible acoustic properties and listen to the choirs join their voices together. It's a sound that makes one feel awed and fortunate to be in the company of such amazing talent.

The USCC Union of Youth Council organizes the weekend with some help from the Doukhobor elders, but the council themselves work to prepare this exciting weekend. Their ages range from 15 to 30, and it is great to watch these young people in leadership roles ensuring their Doukhobor heritage is here to stay for many more years to come in our country and this province.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to the individuals in this building who work for this cause. I thank each and every one of them.

For thousands of people living in communities throughout Canada, cystic fibrosis is very much a reality. Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal disease affecting young Canadians today.

While the vast majority of us take simple acts of breathing for granted, most of those living with cystic fibrosis must undergo hours each day of physical and inhalation therapy. This is just one of the many physical hardships facing those living with the disease. It is why May has been declared Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month to help bring a greater understanding of those who live with it each and every day.

There is currently no cure for cystic fibrosis. In the 1960s most children with cystic fibrosis did not live long enough to attend kindergarten. Today half of all Canadians are expected to live into their 40s and beyond.

This could not have been done without the amazing fundraising efforts sponsored by Cystic Fibrosis Canada — the Great Strides walk, which takes place this month in communities across the country; and Shinerama, where post-secondary students from coast to coast collect donations every September for cystic fibrosis research. We must also recognize Kin Canada for their continued support in raising funds and awareness to help combat this disease.

It is through fundraisers and dedicated volunteers such as these that one day help will make CF stand not for "cystic fibrosis" but for "cure found." It's time to breathe new life into this disease.

[1400]

CAMOSUN COLLEGE
CHILD CARE SERVICES

R. Fleming: I want to recognize today an extremely valuable organization in my community, the Camosun College child care services organization, who are celebrating a significant anniversary, their 20th anniversary, and holding a garden party on Sunday, May 29 to commemorate that. May is Child Care Month, so it's only fitting that we acknowledge this best-practice facility in my community.

The demand for quality child care in the capital region remains very high, and since 1990 Camosun College child care services has been providing quality child care on campus, allowing parents the opportunity to pursue their educational and career goals while raising children.

The centre provides small caregiving groups and respect for cultural diversity in a safe, supportive and nurturing environment. It also provides educational opportunities for students in early childhood education to complete observations, conduct research, provide workshops, interviews and obtain supervised practicum experiences.

As the opposition Environment critic, I'm also very pleased to report that both the child care facilities look for opportunities to promote sustainability. Recently they replaced disposable juice cartons with reusable containers for liquids, and I'm told that during snack and lunch times the children identify and separate anything recyclable or compostable into bins.

This child care service has been recognized and is nominated for the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Early Childhood Education. I hope and expect that we will hear a positive announcement from Ottawa to award this centre in the fall.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the Camosun College child care services operations manager, Lisa Stekelenburg, and past and present staff who do so much for children and their families in my community, and to recognize this extraordinary anniversary.

GOLF IN B.C.

J. Slater: I'd like to talk today about golf. Today is Golf Awareness Day, and I rise to pay tribute to a sport that I love and that has done so much for British Columbia.

Let's start with golf's immense economic impact. Some 14½ million rounds of golf are played every year in B.C. That sustains over 17,000 seasonal and full-time jobs in the province. A lot of those jobs are filled by the youth of our communities and account for $477 million in direct household income.

In 2007 the International Association of Golf Tour Operators named B.C. as the best golf destination in
[ Page 7156 ]
North America. According to the B.C. Golf Association, those destination golfers spent $330 million on travel, accommodation and meals in B.C. As anyone who has played our B.C. courses can tell you, they are world-class.

In the Boundary-Similkameen I have nine golf courses: Christina Lake, Kettle Valley, Sonora Dunes, Osooyos Desert, Osooyos Parkmeadows, Nk'Mip Canyon Desert, Fairview Mountain, Twin Lakes and St. Andrews by the Lake. Yes, I have to admit that I've played them all.

Economic impact aside, golf is one of the few sports that families can play together, involving kids to parents to seniors. Many of the golf courses have junior programs that are geared to having youth get involved. Golf doesn't demand you be tall, muscular, thin or heavy, but it does provide you with the opportunity for great exercise: walking.

From tourism dollars to jobs to simple weekend outings with families, golf is a sport that can be enjoyed by every member of the family. Fore!

ENVIRONMENTAL SCHOOL IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: A new school is opening up in the district of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, one without walls, textbooks or desks. [Applause.]

I've got to get extra time there, Mr. Speaker.

One without walls, textbooks or desks — at least not in the way we usually think of them. Instead, the walls will sometimes be the tent of a donated yurt; the textbooks, the leaves of the trees; and the desks will be the grass, rocks and fields.

Nature is the classroom, and the community itself becomes the school. A school is not a building. A school is a place of learning. Imagine what happens when you get rid of the walls, and children are outside in contact with their subjects all the time.

[1405]

School district 42 is opening its first-ever environmental school, an idea that grew from imagining that learning can happen outside the box, literally. It will be based on the principles of place and community, nature, ecology and sustainability, inquiry and possibility, interdependence and flourishing, imagination and integration.

Sixty children from kindergarten to grade 7 will participate in this unique opportunity. Three teachers will go through the regular curriculum in a way that is consistently interwoven with the outdoor setting. There will be remarkable fluidity between the grades. Children will be able to help others of different ages while being challenged at their individual learning level.

Clayton Maitland is the vice-principal and coordinator of this project. Since August 2008 his passionate involvement has linked the cooperation of the municipalities, parks and rec, First Nations and environmental groups.

A $1 million grant over five years from SFU, in addition to regular funding from the school district, has given this brainchild its legs, which will begin walking this September. I am proud that Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows is the location of this school and believe that our fabulous parks and environment are the perfect classroom for these lucky, adventurous students.

Thank you to Mr. Maitland, the parents, the school board and community groups such as KEEPS, ARMS and the CEED Centre for believing in the power of our greatest teacher, planet Earth.

Oral Questions

CONDITIONS AT
ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Today at Royal Columbian Hospital there are 20 hallway beds full. At ten o'clock there were 55 patients admitted to the emergency room in overflow areas, waiting to go up to the wards. It's a pretty typical day at Royal Columbian after years of government neglect.

It's particularly keenly felt in the neurosurgery wards of the hospital, and I want to ask the minister if he thinks a hallway is an appropriate place for a neurosurgery patient recovering from serious surgery to be getting care.

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no question that there are still facilities, Royal Columbian Hospital being one of them, where our dedicated health care professionals are still confronted by some challenges. That translates into challenges for patients, and it's why the government, over the last ten years, has taken such extraordinary steps to improve the capital infrastructure — that is, the hospitals that are available.

Whether or not it's at Surrey Memorial, whether it's the Pattison care centre that is due to open just in a matter of days, whether it's Abbotsford, whether it's VGH, these represent in total upwards of $7 billion in capital investment in improving the health care infrastructure.

There are still challenges, and this government is going to apply itself with every diligence and make every effort to address those challenges, just as we've done over the past ten years.

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

A. Dix: Whether or not it's the Premier's campaign chair, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance or, now, the new Minister of Health, for the last ten years the government of British Columbia has let down the staff at Royal Columbian Hospital. They've been warned again and again about this crisis, and they have done nothing except close down the 71 acute care beds at St. Mary's.
[ Page 7157 ]

The fact of the matter is that it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to be put in the position that a woman has been put in this past week at that hospital. It's contrary to the policy of the hospital where we have a patient recovering from neurosurgery to be put in the hallway.

It wasn't because the staff wasn't working hard. It's because they had no more option. When is the government finally, after years of neglect to this hospital, going to take action and improve the situation at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm a bit surprised. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition, as a former Health critic, would have been aware that we have already begun to take that action, that we have…

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: …initiated the preparation of a site redevelopment plan.

There's no question that this is expensive. The redevelopment of the site, in addition to the $60 million or $70 million that has already been spent, will be very expensive. Just down the road at the Surrey Memorial Hospital is the single largest investment ever made in hospital infrastructure, and the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …member for Surrey-Fleetwood today in this place seems to diminish the importance of that. If I go into my hard drive here, I think I can find a picture of him at the opening, smiling broadly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister, and wrap it up, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, there are challenges. There will continue to be challenges. But the record of this government, reflected as it is in over $7 billion of investment in hospital and health care infrastructure, is the single biggest guarantor of our commitment to B.C. families.

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

A. Dix: Well, it's clear that the nurses and the doctors and the health care workers and the patients at Royal Columbian Hospital have been let down for years by this government. The government talks about a site development plan.

Eight years after they were warned of this crisis by emergency room physicians they talk about a site development plan, seven years after they got the acute care capacity initiative results that told them they were way down in acute care beds at Royal Columbian Hospital. It's clear that the patients at the Royal Columbian Hospital rolled up the rim, but they did not win.

I asked the question to the hon. minister. I asked the question to him, which is pretty clear. They have failed again and again. They haven't taken action. They got a development plan 18 months ago. They still haven't taken action. When is the minister going to get off these delays and take action for the patients at Royal Columbian Hospital, who have suffered enough from the incompetence of successive Ministers of Health?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I have been as forthright as, I think, one can be. I acknowledge that there are ongoing challenges, but when we make decisions, when we try to balance our passion and commitment to build with the ability of the taxpayers to finance that construction, we do make choices. We made choices.

The hon. member was in Vernon. Somehow the leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Official Opposition, found a way to characterize as bad news a $180 million investment at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Today he stands here and purports to be offended by what is taking place — $7 billion in capital investment.

I wonder how offended he was when the government that he advised for a decade left a tower in Vancouver 12 floors empty for an entire decade. I wonder how offended he was then.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: Actually, Member, the outrage is by the public of British Columbia. The outrage is the members of a family whose loved one has been recovering in a hallway in Royal Columbian Hospital. The outrage is from doctors and nurses and physicians and patients and the public, who have been waiting for eight years for improvements at Royal Columbian Hospital since St. Mary's was closed and demolished.

The question is clear. When will the minister address the concerns of the health care providers of this province at Royal Columbian and the public, who expect a lot better at Royal Columbian than they've been getting for the last eight years?
[ Page 7158 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always interested when members of the opposition, including former Health Ministers, include in their questions references to doctors and nurses, because of course when they had an opportunity to make a difference, they chose not to train one additional nurse or one additional doctor.

The member referred to the eight-year period. It takes eight years from the time someone enters university to when they are trained and qualified to provide just the kind of service members of the opposition say they care about for B.C. families.

We have doubled the number of doctors that are being….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: We have made the long-term investment necessary to significantly increase the number of nurses that are trained in British Columbia. We will apply ourselves with equal diligence to ensuring that the families that rely on Surrey Memorial Hospital or Royal Columbian Hospital have the service that they require in a timely way. That's our commitment, and we will see that commitment through.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: It's 2011, and Tim Hortons health care is no longer acceptable in the province of British Columbia. Doctors have been making it clear, and nurses have been making it clear, and health care professionals have been making it clear.

For the last eight years since this government closed and demolished St. Mary's Hospital, there has been crisis after crisis in Royal Columbian Hospital, and this government has failed to address that. It's not about $7 billion. It's not about Surrey Memorial. It's about Royal Columbian Hospital and the crisis in there and a woman recovering from serious surgery in a hallway.

When is this minister going to actually finally act and fix the problems in Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I mentioned a few moments ago, the record of this government in addressing the health care needs of British Columbians in terms of the professionals that we rely upon, in terms of the facilities that we rely upon, will withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

We are going to continue to do the work. We are going to continue to train the professionals. We are going to continue to invest in a responsible way. That includes Royal Columbian Hospital, but it also includes Vernon Jubilee, VGH, Women's Hospital, Children's Hospital, Surrey Memorial, St. Paul's and Abbotsford Hospital, which these folks over there left languishing for an entire decade.

The difference between this government and those folks is when we say we're going to do it, we do it. It's not just talk. It's action, and that's what distinguishes this government from that opposition.

[1420]

BEDS AND FACILITIES AT
VERNON JUBILEE HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Minister, the Leader of the Opposition is not the only one concerned about Vernon Jubilee Hospital. On May 9 Vernon city council voted publicly to endorse a purple-ribbon community campaign that is protesting the crowded conditions at Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

The solution is obvious. The patient tower being built at Vernon Jubilee has the space but not the beds. Will the Minister of Health listen to the people of Vernon, listen to the doctors and nurses in Vernon and promise to open more acute beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, it was also good to see her at the sod-turning at the Surrey Memorial campus just a few weeks ago.

The situation at Vernon Jubilee, to put it in some sort of context, of course, revolves around a $180 million investment in health care infrastructure in a new patient tower. It includes a state-of-the-art ICU, state-of-the-art maternity care, state-of-the-art surgical facilities and expanded emergency room provision as well. It is a significant investment in improving the delivery of health care services in Vernon.

I have been to Vernon. In fact, it was one of my first stops upon taking responsibility for this portfolio. I have met with the clinicians. I understand the pressures that have been felt, and we are working with them and the health authority to ensure that there is a plan in place to address those pressures that capitalizes upon that $180 million investment at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: To the Health Minister again: I thank you for welcoming me to Surrey Memorial sod-turning, but I didn't come there to celebrate. I came there to underline the years and years of neglect for the Surrey Memorial Hospital and health care in Surrey.

A $180 million tower is being built without the gain of one more acute care beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. It's almost perverse. A new tower is built, and two floors are left as empty shelves. I mean, what are you thinking? In the future, code purples will be announced regularly and daily in a brand-new shiny tower.

Will the minister commit to opening more acute care beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: I accept as genuine the member's expression of concern. I can only imagine the outrage
[ Page 7159 ]
she must have felt when she was a member of a government that presided for a decade over not two floors, not four floors, not six floors, not eight, not ten but 12 empty floors at VGH — 12 empty floors.

The member chooses to assign no value to the benefits of an enhanced emergency room facility. She chooses to assign no value to a state-of-the-art ICU. She chooses to assign no value to the new surgical facilities that are going to be available there. I can assure her of this: having met with the clinicians in Vernon, they do.

[1425]

They also have concerns about some ongoing pressures, and the MLA from Vernon, myself and this government, on behalf of the families of the Vernon area and those served by Vernon Jubilee Hospital, are going to work on that, and we are going to ensure that there is a plan in place to address those pressures.

COMMUNITY LIVING B.C. AND SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

N. Simons: It was seven years ago tomorrow, in fact, that the Community Living Authority Act was introduced for the first time in this Legislature, creating Community Living B.C. With it were the hopes of families of people with developmental disabilities, their advocates. They'd worked hard on this.

Seven years later, after being told by then Deputy Premier and current Premier Christy Clark that this legislation gives British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their communities…. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life.

Well, unfortunately, the reality in communities across this province does not match that description. Will the minister acknowledge the problems that exist, and will he do what's necessary to honour the promises that were made seven years ago and provide the resources necessary for people with developmental disabilities in this province?

Hon. H. Bloy: I am listening to the concerns of these families. Their dedication and hard work on behalf of family members and others in the community with developmental disabilities is admirable. You know, these parents and caregivers are the very backbone of community inclusion, and we are working to serve every member of Community Living British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: MLAs are getting letters from families concerned about their family members languishing on wait-lists, unable to get services, worried about the future of their children. This is a crisis in this province. They were promised. They were given hope. Hopes were raised, and hopes were dashed. Promises were made, and promises were broken.

The Premier, Christy Clark, said back then that we have such an opportunity here in British Columbia to do something great, to do something innovative and to do something that leads the world and that will be good for all people who depend on the services government provides. Yes, an admirable goal, if it weren't so sad with the truth of the matter, and that is that those goals have not been reached.

Seven years later these families are waiting. Advocates are speaking out loudly and clearly. If the minister doesn't understand, I hope someone does on that side of the House that these needs need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed urgently. Will the minister do what his government has said they'd be doing and provide the necessary resources so that families in this province don't have to live from one crisis to the next?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure the members across the street that this government is concerned and is working with other government ministries, with other government organizations to provide the individuals that they need with the support. But let me assure the members across the street that we have always supported Community Living British Columbia. We've invested now…. Mr. Speaker, $701 million was our budget this year. In fact, in the last three years we've increased our budget by $31 million, servicing over 13,000 individuals in this community.

CARE PLANS FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

C. Trevena: Lesley Wasylyk's daughter Margo has a developmental disability as well as a progressive genetic condition that impairs her balance and coordination. She needs one-on-one supervision at all times and needs help with all of her personal care.

[1430]

Yesterday in this House the Minister of Social Development talked about the importance of drawing up plans. Well, Lesley submitted a three-year plan for Margo's care before she turned 19. Eight months later that plan, for which the family was praised by CLBC, has not been funded. Lesley and her husband are exhausted trying to provide 24-7 care for Margo. They're being pushed to a crisis. I'd like to ask the Minister of Social Development whether he still believes that support for families like the Wasylyks is adequate.

Hon. H. Bloy: I can't talk about individual cases, due to confidentiality. I would invite the member to send the information to me, and I'd be pleased to sit down and talk to her. We are committed to helping every individual
[ Page 7160 ]
within Community Living B.C., and I look forward to receiving the plan so that we can talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I'm very surprised by the minister. This case has come directly to the minister. I was actually copied on a letter that was addressed to the minister, so it is on his desk.

I would like to ask the minister, however — if we are not going to a specific case, which I hope he does address, having had the letter on his desk — whether he thinks that the plans he talks so articulately about should be addressed. These are plans drawn up with CLBC by families with the complete trust that they will be funded, and then they turn around and are told that no matter what the level of need, there isn't the money.

What are these families supposed to do, Minister? Are you going to respect the plans? Are you going to implement the plans? What are you going to do as a minister?

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, dealing with individuals in Community Living British Columbia is not without its challenges for the families and/or for government. But I support the work that Community Living British Columbia does. I support the 3,200 care providers there and the employees. We are helping over 13,000 individuals a year with a budget of over $700 million. It's a $31 million increase over the last three years.

We're here to work with every family and to support every family.

SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

M. Karagianis: In 2004 the Premier, Christy Clark, promised that the creation of CLBC would change the lives of people with developmental disabilities and their families for the better. But the Caulder family, who live in my community, can attest to the failure of that promise.

Christie Caulder was forced out of a group home against her family's wishes. She had her services cut by two-thirds, and she's currently been put in a setting with inadequate staffing for her needs. As a result, she has lost weight — and at 80 pounds, she cannot afford to lose any weight — and she's been hospitalized for illness for the first time in 15 years. Her mother is worried for her daughter's safety.

So I'd like to know when this callous B.C. Liberal government is going to stop denying the crisis at hand in community living and ensure that people like Christie are living in a safe environment.

Hon. H. Bloy: Let me assure the member across the way and people in British Columbia that the first concern of Community Living B.C. is the individuals they serve. They are now serving over 13,000 individuals a year with services and programs. In fact, last year 766 new individuals came into the system with services, and over a thousand individuals received services who were already in the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The reality is that hundreds and hundreds of families in this province are finding themselves with little or no services. Families are paying the price, and this minister and this government are in complete denial about it. Families are here today to tell this government that they have been pushed to the crisis limit. It doesn't get any clearer than that, hon. Speaker.

To the minister responsible: will you commit to the families today that you will give them adequate services, because the families are depending on you to do something? Do something about this.

[1435]

Hon. H. Bloy: As I said earlier, providing services is a challenge for some of the families and for government to do it. We have worked at it. We have been increasing services. I've met with the British Columbia Association for Community Living, and I look forward to meeting with many other groups. They've sent in requests, and we're setting up meetings this June to meet with them.

C. James: For seven years families have been working hard, advocates have been working hard, and caregivers have been working hard. They deserve better than they're getting from this government and this minister today.

Parents are told that they have to put together plans. They put together plans, they submit the plans, and then what happens? Nothing. No resources after all that work that they've done putting that together.

My question is to the minister. How does this government's inaction put families first?

Hon. H. Bloy: As a government, and Community Living B.C. was initiated by this government…. It's celebrating its seventh-year anniversary. There are lots of great achievements with Community Living B.C. It's recognized as a leader in Canada for the development work that they are doing. Many advocates support the work that we're doing, and I look forward to meeting with these groups on how we can always improve.

This government has always supported Community Living British Columbia with more money every year, year after year, with more services year after year. This government has been a full partner in working with Community Living British Columbia and all the individuals with developmental disabilities that we serve.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 7161 ]

Point of Order

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the interpretation of a motion passed by the assembly constituting the Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer. The committee was constituted by motion of the House on Thursday, May 6, 2010. The committee was charged, among other things, that it "shall report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly."

The committee last met on February 9, 2011. The new session of this parliament, obviously the third, began in February 2011. The House sat February 14 to 17 and then regularly from April 28 until today's date.

Contrary to the clear motion of this assembly, which gives it its powers, the committee has not in fact reported to this House. I seek your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I'll take it under advisement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: I have three constituents from the Comox Valley in the House today, and I'd like to introduce them if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. D. McRae: Three great teachers are here attending the B.C. teachers institute. We have Ian Hargreaves from Miracle Beach Elementary; Carolyn Parrish from Queneesh Elementary School; and Liska Roger who, when I was in elementary school, I used to call Liska Mark. She's gotten married since. She is from Airport Elementary School.

I would like to ask the House to please make these people welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon, we will be continuing the estimates of the Minister of Education, and in Committee A, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

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

D. Routley: I'll begin in a Shakespearean tone, and I'm sure the minister will appreciate that. I will say that lawless are those who make their wills their law. I think the recent decision by Madam Justice Griffin reminds us that the will that was driving the government in 2002 to make the changes it deemed necessary allowed it to become lawless in that it made changes to the collective bargaining process and the contract process for the teachers of this province and that stu dents have paid the price for that ever since.

Clearly, the government had its intentions, and those intentions were spelled out in material that was before the courts. In 2002 then Education Minister Christy Clark avowed that she was delighted to speak in favour of Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. She said that it was about putting students first in that it would meet the needs of individual children.

Well, it became clear that that bill was never about students and that it was about the dismantling of the system. In fact, in material that was put before the court it showed that many months in advance, officials in the Education Ministry and the minister herself, now Premier, knew that the legislation they were passing would mean deep cuts and hundreds of millions of dollars per year cut from the education services for children, which would result in the massive layoffs that we saw of teachers, larger class sizes and less support.

The districts that I represent, district 79 in the Cowichan Valley and district 68 in Nanaimo, are still struggling with the effects of that bill. The justice gave the government one year to rectify the problems that bill has created.

Can the minister tell us: are the plans of the government to restore the funding and the services to the levels that were expected at that time, or will they simply be responding by adapting the legislation to the current needs of this budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question, but this is an area that we canvassed fully yesterday. I would refer him to the exchange that occurred between the Education critic and myself at some length yesterday. This precise question was asked and answered yesterday. The member should check Hansard from yesterday, because he'll see the answer to the question he's just posed.

D. Routley: In fact, I'm asking in relation to the struggles of district 68 and district 79, which have for years and years struggled with deficits as a result of that legislation. This year there was a $5.8 million shortfall
[ Page 7162 ]
in Cowichan that was reduced to $1.4 million after the funding protection grant. Still, the $1.4 million that was required to satisfy a balanced budget had to come from somewhere, and it came from services to children. As I said, the effects of Bill 27 and 28 are still being felt in that district.

Can the minister answer the question? Will they answer the demand of the justice? In fact, will the government act to restore these conditions by September? If they take the year to respond to the justice's decision, then the children in the districts that I serve will have to wait another budget year to see any effect of that. Really, we're talking more a two-year lag before there's any effect.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd be delighted to respond to any question the member had with respect to school district 68, Nanaimo-Ladysmith, or school district 79, Cowichan Valley. But we canvassed fully the issue of the discussion and the negotiation between the B.C. Teachers Federation and the government and BCPSEA yesterday.

[1450]

D. Routley: It's unfortunate. I have referred to the deficit that has been created in Cowichan and how that deficit was created by this decision. I'm asking, for the constituents of the Cowichan Valley and Nanaimo: is the minister going to respond to their need?

They had a $1.4 million deficit this year. They had to cut their literacy and numeracy coordinators to satisfy that deficit. That was just one of the services they had to cut. So I'm asking: can they expect to be able to restore those services as a result of the government responding to the demands made by Justice Griffin?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by reviewing enrolment and operating funding and per-pupil funding at Nanaimo-Ladysmith. In 2000-2001 there was a full-time enrolment of 16,252 students at Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district. By a decade later that number had been reduced to just over 13,800, and it may have dropped, in fact, a little bit below that. That is a substantial decline in the enrolment that has occurred in that school district over a decade and is consistent with the demographic shift that has occurred in many school districts across the province.

For school district 68 — and this is important to note — the operating funding provided by the government to Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district in 2000-2001 was $99,158,939 — so over $99 million in 2000-2001. Today their funding is $117.7 million plus. It will be just over that, and per-pupil funding has grown from $6,101 per student to $8,622 per student in Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

We can talk all day long about that if the member wishes. Not to repeat old ground, but a couple of the members mentioned yesterday…. I thought it was interesting. They claimed underfunding, so to ground-proof the question of whether funding had been appropriate or inappropriate, I went back and looked at the NDP's education budget for 2009-2012, as set out in their education platform for the 2009 campaign.

Interestingly, when you put together the three-year plan of the NDP through those years, it totals $225 million. The government actual for those three years was $254 million. That is $29 million more than the plan that had been proposed by the NDP in the 2009 election.

You know, that's fascinating. I guess the easiest thing that any member can claim is: "Oh, the system is underfunded." I heard that for four years in the Ministry of Health. I hear it here, but I've just laid it out for school district 68.

[1455]

For school district 79…. I'll have a quick review of that, because I suspect the situation will be similar. For Cowichan Valley, school district 79, the full-time enrolment back in 2000-2001 was 10,384 students. It has now dropped to just over 8,100 students for Cowichan Valley. Notwithstanding that, we have seen their operating funding grow from $64,690,754 in 2000-2001 to $70,569,650 today. Per-student funding has grown from $6,230 in 2000-2001 to $8,526 today.

So the member can go ahead and try to make a political case here. We've got lots of time to debate the matter. I was quite pleased by the very constructive discussion that we had around a range of issues with a range of opposition members yesterday, but if we want to have a political go, I'm happy to have that in estimates as well.

D. Routley: Well, fewer students, more money, fewer services, cutbacks, deficits. So the minister has heard about underfunding, but he hasn't listened.

Each year I get to ask an Education Minister to manage my daughter's allowance. The Education Minister can double her allowance, and then he can download huge costs onto her. He can download my increased accounting costs. He can download the heating costs. He can download the teacher's salary increase of her teacher. When she comes to me at the end of the week, I'll just send her to the minister, and he can tell her that her per-child allowance has gone up higher than it's ever been. That will do her no good because he has created a deficit by imposing costs on her.

That's exactly what this government has done to school districts, from MSP premiums to now the property tax download.

In school district 79 this year there are only 38 fewer students, and yet they have had to make the cuts that I've mentioned. They've had to increase class size. They've cut back 3.4 full-time-equivalent teachers this year to gain $308,000 to address that deficit, and this is with only 38 fewer students.
[ Page 7163 ]

So the minister can twist all he likes, but those are the facts. I think the students, the parents, the teachers and the trustees of the Cowichan Valley would like to hear the minister address that problem — the deficits that have been created, the deficits that these districts have to deal with — and how he might address some of those particular needs. The employee benefit premium holiday, the municipal pension rate increase and MSP premiums are all unfunded increased costs that this government brought to districts — unfunded costs.

So is the minister prepared to address the deficits in Cowichan Valley by providing more funding and by honouring the decision of Justice Griffin and returning conditions to what our students and our schools experienced before the change in the legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, just to reinforce the point, because this is vitally important, I think, for the member to understand. In 2009-10 there was an enrolment in Nanaimo-Ladysmith of 13,897 students, and the board of education was funded $116,434,560, or $8,257 per student.

[1500]

Between that and today we have seen that number drop by almost 300 students. But because of the funding protection that government has put in place, their funding, their budgetary allocation has grown despite that dropping number of students. Because of the funding protection, their budget has grown to $117,761,409 — an increase of well over $1 million, about $1.3 million. Per-student funding has grown to $8,510 from $8,257.

The member can talk about doom and gloom, and he is welcome to do that. These are estimates where the opposition can say what they will. But the fact of the matter is we have protected the funding to Nanaimo-Ladysmith.

Further, I would note that the member has talked about deficit. In the case of the Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district, they have been running an accumulating operating fund surplus consistently; 2001 was the last time they had an operating fund deficit. Since then, they have consistently run operating fund surpluses of about $1.2 million to a high of about $1.7 million on an annual basis and, most recently, a $746,000 operating fund surplus. Clearly, Nanaimo-Ladysmith appears to be doing a very good job in terms of shepherding the resources and managing what they are provided by the province.

Again, Cowichan Valley school district 79 — 8,378 students in '09-10, again a drop of just about 200 students to somewhere around 8,186, perhaps a little bit lower than that on the most recent estimates, but a drop of a couple hundred students. Nevertheless, a growing budget and a growing per-student application as well.

It is interesting to note that this school district, Cowichan Valley, is one that has been running in recent years small operating fund deficits. They are in the range of a low end of $364,000 to most recently $458,000 as deficits. But that is not characteristic, Member, of boards across the province. In 2001 we had 17 boards that were running on operating fund deficits. More recently, we've had four boards that have been in deficit situations — all, I think, very small deficit situations. The balance, 56, are running operating fund surpluses.

Again, the member, I'm sure, draws dramatically different conclusions from this data than I do. But that is the prerogative, I suppose, of the opposition.

D. Routley: According to the accounting requirements of the ministry, they're required to balance or run minuscule surpluses. In fact, they only achieve that balance by making deep cuts to services. We've heard from school trustees all over the province about that. So the minister chooses to ignore that.

In school district 68 in Nanaimo-Ladysmith there's a school called Ecole Davis Road, Davis Road Elementary. This ministry has rejected the facilities plan of the Nanaimo school district and told them to go back to the drawing board, so they're considering moving students around the district and out of community in order to satisfy the needs of the ministry.

Ecole Davis Road is a school where there are nine portables on site; 97 percent of the students are from in town in Ladysmith. Ladysmith has a high birth rate, a growing population. It's a separate geographic area from the rest of the district, so there should be some consideration of that. It's 12K to the nearest school where there's any room at all. Thirty-six percent of the students at Davis Road are understood to be vulnerable, and the median income is $24,000.

[1505]

Now the district is being forced to consider moving students to the adjacent communities, forcing parents to drive and putting students out of their local schools. This is a case where a school is full and over capacity, yet the school district doesn't have the funds to address that need. What can the minister offer to the parents of Ecole Davis Road?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question was with respect to school district 68 and their capital plan for development of schools in school district 68. I'm advised by staff that in 2008-2009 school district 68 had put forward an $85 million capital plan. That capital plan had gone through all of the ministerial approvals and was ready for the approval of the minister. However, apparently, shortly after the school trustee election of that year, the capital plan was withdrawn by the board of education. It was not rejected by the ministry or the minister. It was withdrawn by the board of education.

We are looking forward to receipt of a new capital plan from school district 68. From what we know of the circumstances in school district 68, Ecole Davis Road
[ Page 7164 ]
might be totally appropriate as first choice for their new capital plan, but we have to see that capital plan before we can draw definitive conclusions about it.

D. Routley: This Friday the parents of Ecole Davis Road have arranged a walkathon. Over 500 kids from Ladysmith will be walking to support their Japanese school children counterparts. They also are aware that none of the schools in Ladysmith have been seismically upgraded. Does the minister have any plans to address the seismic upgrading in Nanaimo-Ladysmith district?

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, to correct the record with respect to Cowichan Valley school district 79, the way in which it was framed up in this particular document was confusing — at least confusing to me, which is perhaps an easy thing to occur.

Just so the member perhaps feels better about his world, in fact, since 2005 Cowichan Valley school district 79 has been running operating surpluses: $682,416 in 2005, then consistently up to as high as $2,064,073 in 2008, and a surplus of $1.398 million in the most recent years. So that's important to note to avoid any confusion.

In terms of the member's questions about seismic, the Wellington School project has been approved and, we presume, will form part of the capital plan that will be coming forward from the school district. The capital plan involves not only renovation and replacement projects but also seismic projects. So Wellington has been approved, if and when the district wishes to proceed with that.

I should also note that across the province — and that would include the two school districts that have been raised here — some $25 million has been expended on non-structural safety work inside schools. That would be things like light fixtures or shelving or any other non-structural element in a school that might shake or fall when an earthquake occurs. So that's been valuable as well.

D. Routley: The Nanaimo board of education and the Nanaimo District Teachers Association have sought to negotiate continuity in posting so that there would be less disruption — teachers moving from school to school and subject to subject. They've been told by BCPSEA that they are not able to negotiate those conditions. It seems a non-cost item, and it seems something that might be appropriately left up to the Nanaimo district board of education and the Nanaimo District Teachers Association to sort out for themselves. Does the minister support that?

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe that from a ministerial perspective, given that BCPSEA is the employer, we have any additions or constructive advice that we would add over and above what has been provided by BCPSEA.

D. Routley: Both of these districts, particularly school district 79, have significant busing challenges and have struggled to maintain their services. District 79 has made significant cuts to services in trying to meet the needs of students who are migrating from different parts of the district due to the removal of catchment area boundaries by the government's decisions in the past.

Recently UVic environmental law did a study on the effects of busing in terms of the carbon footprint. School districts are required to become carbon-neutral by this government's decisions. In judging carbon neutrality, cuts to school busing are seen as a reduction of the carbon footprint. In other words, if I cut a busing run for my school district, I'm credited for reducing its carbon footprint. But this UVic environmental law study found that for each bus that's taken off the road, there's a 23 times greater carbon footprint because of the number of parents who end up driving students to school and back.

So while this is an unintended consequence of a well-meaning piece of legislation that is attempting to drive our districts towards carbon neutrality, if we peel the onion another layer through the effects of this demand and the way it's being judged, we see that this particular element of that equation is actually increasing the carbon footprint of districts.

If the ministry is interested in reducing the carbon output of school districts, it will further fund school busing services, not put conditions that would reduce that funding. Does the minister agree with that, and if he does, will he advocate for greater funding for school busing services in rural districts?

[1520]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the issue. I guess there are a number of elements with respect to transportation or busing within school districts that are raised. Of course, again, with 60 school districts, the story might be a little bit different in each school district. So I'll try to make a few comments about the issue of busing. We do support districts in busing.

In terms of the Cowichan Valley school district, since 2001-2002 we have purchased, on average, probably three or four buses a year, by the look of it — a high of six in 2002-2003, another high of six in '06-07. Over the nine years some 26 buses have been purchased for the Cowichan Valley school district.

With those buses, particularly as the buses get newer, the technology continues to improve. And with clean diesel technology, they are very, very clean vehicles now in terms of emissions, so that's important to note.

We also would note — and again, this is a generalized comment, not directed at Cowichan Valley — that
[ Page 7165 ]
across the province, where it's appropriate, we see school districts attempting to integrate their busing with B.C. Transit or local busing that may be available. It makes all the sense in the world to have one full bus rather than two half-full buses, which is sometimes the case.

[1525]

I think we should also note that the issue around carbon tax is an important one. School district emissions for 2010 total about 180,000 tonnes, require about $4.5 million in offset purchases.

Also, I should note that in March 2011 the ministry reimbursed school districts almost $3 million for carbon taxes paid during 2010. During the past year boards also received an additional $7.7 million from the ministry under the energy-efficient mechanical upgrades capital program for upgrades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, boards recently received almost $6.6 million from the government's public sector energy conservation agreement, or PSECA, to fund an upgrade to their energy infrastructure and further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. During the past three years boards have received $11.1 million in total from the PSECA fund to upgrade their energy infrastructure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope that helps to answer the member's question. I think all of us — and I suspect particularly students — appreciate the importance of trying to address climate change in a responsible way. Certainly, schools and school districts have wanted to be a part of that, and we are always working with school districts to find ways to support their carbon neutrality.

D. Routley: The buses that the minister mentions are purchased in an effort to replace an aging fleet. They do increase the efficiency and reduce the carbon footprint, which is all the more reason to give more support to transportation services, which generally are coming out of the per-student grant and are very difficult for, at least, the busing that is imposed on the district by the lack of catchment area boundaries.

In the case of Cowichan there's a considerable demand, with students who are migrating from different programs and different high schools, so the issue of reducing carbon footprint is not resolved by what the minister has offered. The carbon footprint of the district is judged as more positive once they reduce their busing fleet. It just seems a backward piece. It's not an effort to make any political gain but maybe a suggestion to the minister that he could help the districts meet their goals more speedily by increasing the support for busing.

School district 79 has increased its spring break by one week. In order to accommodate that, they increased the school days following that by a few minutes per day. I would like to know whether the minister feels that this is a threat to the well-being of vulnerable students.

Many parents, many teachers and many people who serve these students feel that they are put at a particularly greater loss because of decisions that reduce their class time — at least reduce their number of school days by increasing the length of the other days they attend school by a very small amount. But giving them this longer break, they tend to lose more, and it takes longer for teachers to bring them back up to speed with the rest of the class.

Does the minister agree that this is an unfortunate step that this district has had to resort to?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by correcting a statement which the member made. He suggested that the cost of busing would come out of the per-student grant. It does not. There is a separate allocation for busing, for transportation for each school district. It is not an area where the busing has to come out of that per-student grant. That is not the case.

In terms of the issues around an extended spring break and the addition of, typically, some minutes to every school day to offset that, we are seeing, I guess, different experiences around the province.

[1530]

Some school districts have chosen to do what the member, I think, has suggested Cowichan Valley has done, but others have not. Of course, we look with interest at the experience of that, but what we do as a ministry is to mandate the number of instructional hours. We do not order or mandate the precise distribution of those hours across a term or over time. So that's an interesting question the member raises in that regard.

As they set out their calendar and make decisions about longer spring breaks or shorter summer breaks or longer days or shorter days, the boards consult the public. They make what we hope are appropriate and thoughtful decisions with respect to what is right for their school district and right for the students in their school district.

If the position of the member or of the opposition is that we should move away from that flexibility — and there are some arguments which the members may wish to offer up to indicate that we should take away that flexibility from boards of education — I certainly would welcome their thoughts. I'm certainly not going to challenge them on the point. I'm just curious as to whether the member is suggesting that from an instructional perspective or from a student achievement perspective that a two-week spring break is a wrong decision.

If that's his view or the opposition's view, I'm pleased to hear it, but at this point we have not seen evidence which would lead us to strip school districts of the flexibility with respect to the calendar.

D. Thorne: I'd like to ask a few questions around the high school completion rates for aboriginal students. I just wanted to read out some statistics first.
[ Page 7166 ]

In 2009 the high school completion rate for aboriginal students was 50.4 percent, which was slightly up from the year before. It was 48.8 percent. However, in the four-year service plan the completion rate targets were 58 percent up to 65 percent in 2011-2012. Then in the 2009 service plan the targets were downgraded by approximately 10 percent. The note under that said that forecasts and targets had been adjusted to ensure that they were achievable. This was in the service plan on page 11.

I find it a little concerning that we've lowered the rates, even though they may seem to be more achievable. There are other ways to achieve both those kinds of rates and higher rates. I think the current minister would agree with me, because I have a quote here from him from April. He feels the rates….

To read the quote: "Our rates of aboriginal achievement and success are unacceptably low in this province. I am somewhat between disappointed and ashamed, as an Education Minister, that we have not achieved the success that we should in relation to aboriginal learning."

I suspect that the minister agrees with what I'm saying, and I'm just wondering if he would answer one question around the level of success and graduation rates and his feeling that they're unacceptable. Could he advise the House what measures the ministry plans to take on improving aboriginal education and graduation rates?

[1535]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. I feel very passionately with respect to this issue.

The achievement rate that to date we have seen for First Nations and aboriginal students in the province of British Columbia is, from my perspective, absolutely unacceptable. I think as British Columbians we should all feel somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed that we have failed aboriginal students as badly as we have, and it is a huge challenge.

The challenge is, in part, what we have done in the education system. In part, it is the other range of social and economic conditions which exist in the province and which I think we all need to improve on.

A lot of the challenge will go back to 1870 and the Indian Act of 1873 and a lot of the bad public policy — at least from today's perspective, what we would deem to be unconstructive or bad public policy — in relation to the exclusion of First Nations, creation of reserves, exclusion from socioeconomic opportunities in a whole range of ways which, as I've said in other forums, I think are very effectively set out in a book by a professor of history, UVic.

Dr. John Lutz has written a book called Makúk, which very dramatically lays out the history and the challenge we have in terms of remediating that history. But I think that what we do in this Education Ministry is among the most important things we must do if we're going to turn around the economic and social circumstances of First Nations in this province.

Again, it's not the only thing we have to do. I'm a big fan of Dr. Perry Kendall and the work he's done in relation to aboriginal people and their health outcomes, because that's important too. What we do in the area of criminal justice is important. What we do in the area of mental health and addictions is important. What we do in children and family development is enormously important. But what we do in education, I think, is fundamental in terms of hopefully, over the course of a generation or less, seeing the student achievement results for First Nations turned around.

There are some things we are doing which have been in some cases quickly and in some cases slowly embraced by boards of education. I'm thinking here of aboriginal enhancement agreements. I think those are good. They're an important step forward in terms of building greater achievement opportunities for aboriginal students.

We have brought about some changes to curriculum which, again, I think can be important and useful and constructive. Moving forward, first peoples English, I believe, is the course at 12. That's one example in curriculum which I hope will take us a little bit forward.

I believe the much more knowledgable people around me would share this view. The very most important thing we can do for aboriginal learners is also the very most important thing we can do for every learner in British Columbia — that is, move to a model of personalized learning where very early in a child's life we try to understand any barriers to learning which may exist, any shortfalls in reading, writing and numeracy that may exist, and then have a focused remediation of those challenges.

In that early period, generally pre-K or K through to grade 4 when children are growing, their brains are remarkably receptive to new information and stimuli. The opportunity to remediate shortfalls in reading, writing and numeracy is unparalleled in the course of their lives. That, I think, is hugely important.

[1540]

I would be remiss if I did not talk a little bit about the Fort Nelson school district and the amazing things they are doing there. Fort Nelson is one of the three school districts in the province that have all of their children performing at optimal levels by grade 3 in reading, writing and numeracy.

Of course, Fort Nelson is a school district that's got a very significant percentage of aboriginal learners, a very high percentage. Notwithstanding that — and this, I think, goes to the central point — depending on how you manage the introduction of the elements of personalized learning in the classroom, it is possible to see aboriginal students excelling just as other British Columbia students are excelling when you provide them with that kind of support.
[ Page 7167 ]

There's a lot we've got to learn from that, and I hope there are some best practices we can learn from the Fort Nelson experience not only for aboriginal learners, where it may be particularly important, but for all learners.

I thank the member for raising that question. She may have got more of an answer than she ever really dreamed of from me. I hope that's the case. She asked a question where I have a passion, and I had to relay that to her.

D. Thorne: I could never have too much information when I ask a question — right? I miss having a few bird calls in there, though. I just couldn't resist that.

I've heard about Fort Nelson before, actually, and it's quite unbelievable what they've done up there. It's definitely a model, and I wonder if it has been some kind of a model in looking at the aboriginal choice school issue. I know that the government is looking at or is allowing publicly funded target schools designed to specifically address aboriginal education. I think the first one of these is the aboriginal choice school.

I'm wondering if Fort Nelson was any kind of a model for that, or in any way. That's the first question. I'm wondering if you could tell us, Minister, if there have been evaluations done on these types of programs. Is there a lot of evidence of them actually succeeding?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are no aboriginal choice schools in Fort Nelson school district. Fort Nelson school district integrates all the students in common schools, and it is really the educational strategy that they utilize which is, I think, working well, and the personalized learning elements that they bring to that are working well.

That having been said, aboriginal choice schools may be a part of the answer as well. I think it would be fair to say that it is too early in terms of our provincial experience with aboriginal choice schools to form conclusions about whether they should form part of the structure in the future.

There is a relatively new…. I think it is probably only a year or two now that we've had an aboriginal choice school at the secondary level in Prince George. We're following that experience with great interest. I've heard a couple of stories both ways about it, but we'll be following that with interest.

[1545]

To the knowledge of the folks who are with me, there are no aboriginal choice schools outside of the on-reserve schools in B.C. It certainly may be possible that in Prince George or elsewhere there may be one in the future, but we want to really have a very close look and a very clear understanding of how things work in Prince George and look at whether it can be part of the model for the future.

D. Thorne: Maybe it is the Prince George school. I thought there was one operating, because I thought that you'd talked about it on a TV program recently. That is the Prince George one that we're talking about. No evaluations could be done yet, I would imagine, because it's too soon. I'm also assuming, and I guess the question is, that if the evaluations are relatively positive and if there's some success there, we will continue.

I guess what I want to know is: will the Ministry of Education work with the school district that the ministry feels would benefit from it, or will we leave it totally up to school boards? They may not want to go in that direction, where the ministry may feel it would be really helpful to do that. Would you then continue to open these schools and maybe help or push the school boards? I don't know which word you would use.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, our intervention is always of a remarkably benign and constructive nature, never forcing or prodding in any way undignified in attempting to move them forward.

What we would do in terms of the experience in Prince George with the aboriginal school…. It is very new, and we'll start to see results, probably quite early, in terms of student achievement. We will see whether it is a school that keeps aboriginal learners through to successful completion, a Dogwood or otherwise. We'll start to begin to build our body of data and results and our analysis of that as that experience base builds with the aboriginal choice school in Prince George.

What we will be doing is sharing those results on an ongoing basis with all of the other 59 school districts. Whether the results are encouraging or discouraging, it will be an opportunity for others, and I think Vancouver school board may be among these, that are contemplating the possibility of creating such a school. The results, as they grow over time, will help to inform good decision-making on the part of the school districts.

I don't think we would be in a position, at least not yet, to say: "Under these circumstances your best decision would be to create an aboriginal choice school." I don't think we have that body of data yet. That will emerge over time, and as it becomes stronger, we may be more strongly encouraging the creation of it, or not, based on the results.

D. Thorne: This is my last question on this topic. I'm wondering if the new minister is thinking at all about reconsidering the target goals for achievement and raising them back the 10 percent.

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: The question is a very fair one. In no way do I want to appear to disparage it, because it is an important question, and it's one that the ministry has to consider every year — what target they should put in their service plan.
[ Page 7168 ]

That having been said, our goal at this point is to see results and outcomes improve or, in short, student achievement improve and improve quickly in the years ahead. Really, our focus is not on, you know, what number we put in the service plan. Our focus is on 60 school districts and trying to improve what I think both the critic and I have agreed are absolutely unacceptable student achievement outcomes to this point for aboriginal students in the province.

That really will be our central focus in the months and years ahead. It is getting that framework of personalized learning that has been so successful in Fort Nelson, Revelstoke and southeast Kootenay and try to get that framework of best practices instilled in other school districts across the province.

There are children who will do well in almost any circumstance, but it is the vulnerable children, and I think particularly aboriginal children, who really could most benefit by the kind of personalized learning strategy that we see being successful in the three school districts I've mentioned. So that will be our focus rather than the targets. But that's not to suggest that we don't need to look at the targets at all, because we do have to do that on an annual basis.

H. Bains: I would like to ask a few questions about my city and school district 36. I think the two issues that I want to talk about are…. One is the capital funding, and the other one is the CommunityLINK program. I think those two issues have been exhausted — not during this time but by the ministers prior to this minister. The minister is making genuine efforts to go and meet with the school board trustees and meeting with the communities and listening to those concerns, but the fact still remains. They're still waiting for an announcement to see if there is any capital funding coming to expand the classroom capacity.

Just as a background on how dire that situation is, since 2005-06 there hasn't been any capital funding allocated to school district 36, excluding the seismic upgrades. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about expansion of the classrooms in order to accommodate the increasing population of students. During that period, the school district will tell you — and I'm sure this minister has heard from the school district trustees, and previous ministers have heard as well — that over 2,700 new students have entered our school district.

Last year alone 1,100 students entered our school district. As the trustees and the board put it, that is equivalent to having a secondary school or two to three elementary schools. That's just one year's growth in students. As we all know, that is the fastest-growing community in the province, and this is where the growth of the school population also corresponds with that fastest-growing community as well.

I think the question now is…. I'm sure that when the minister met with the school board, they advised the minister and brought him up to date as far as the need to accommodate all those students who are in portables today. In 2009 they were saying that there are 235 portables, and the situation probably is worse now than when they were talking about this letter that was sent to the minister.

[1555]

I guess the question to the minister is…. It's not about politics, and I want to make this clear, because it is a serious situation in Surrey. We get those calls every day from the parents that see their children going to the portables. They come back and say: "Look, they had to stand in a lineup to go to the washrooms because there are no washrooms attached to the portables."

I appreciate that the ministry did provide them with some money to purchase towards the portables. I believe it was last year. Otherwise, the money would come from the operating funds. But still, the situation is still there, and they are still waiting for some answers from the minister. Every minister has been saying: "Well, we are looking into the situation, and we are going to make some announcements." But nothing has happened.

I think, in all seriousness here, I would ask the minister: what is the plan in order to accommodate the growing population in Surrey so that we can eliminate those portables and students can go back to real classrooms to get the quality education that they deserve?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the non-partisan spirit that the member has asked the question, I'll respond similarly. I do appreciate the question. I have heard, and heard frequently, from members on both sides of the House about the challenges of Surrey school district in respect of capital, in respect of growth and so on. I respect the arguments that I've heard from both sides of the House with respect to that.

Surrey certainly has some unique challenges and has had the challenge of rapid growth over the past decade, which stands in stark contrast to most other school districts in the province, which have seen their numbers decline — Surrey not so. I'll read into the record a little bit about that here presently.

I did want to also say how much I appreciated the opportunity to sit down for a couple of hours with the Surrey board of education and their senior administration. The Surrey school district, I think, are an exceptional and responsible group. They are very good managers. They are very responsible in the way that they conduct their business.

[1600]

You know, I'm enormously appreciative of the patience that they have shown around some of the challenges that they face. I did want to say that. We know that when it comes to capital construction they are very professional and have great capacity in that school district, probably without equal — in fact, I'd say without a doubt unequalled
[ Page 7169 ]
elsewhere in the province. So I want to say that we have a very high opinion of Surrey school district and the way in which they have worked very hard to manage the unique challenges of growth that they have faced.

[D. Black in the chair.]

For those who are not as familiar as the member with Surrey school district 36, the enrolment has grown in Surrey from 2001 — 58,648. The current estimate for the school year '11-12 is 67,878. The interim figure was a little less than that, 66,788, but nevertheless, a very, very substantial growth, almost 10,000 more students today in Surrey than a decade ago. That is an important piece of context which I think helps us to understand the challenges that are faced by the district.

Of course, I do want to say at the outset that I am very much looking forward to working with the Surrey board of education and their senior administration to make appropriate investments in the future to help them deal with the challenges that they face in Surrey school district.

Also, I want to say this, because again, I know that the member was struggling mightily to be non-partisan in his comments. I'm certain that he came very close to achieving that lofty goal. I just want to fill in the small gap, perhaps, between the objective goal and where he landed, and that is to say that since 2001 there has been about $243 million in capital investment in schools in Surrey.

I have more detail, likely, than the member would ever dream of in respect of that here in front of me, but let me just briefly recap. We have seen ten new schools over the decade in Surrey. We have seen five replacements. We have seen 14 additions. We have seen two major renovations and 18 seismic projects, in addition to eight site acquisitions — again, totalling over $243 million in investments in Surrey. But I say that not to be quarrelsome, because I never am. The member knows that. I am the last member that anyone would look to in this House for a quarrel.

I observe that only to say that, unlike the member's characterization of no investment over the past decade, in fact, there has been close to a quarter-billion dollars in investment in Surrey.

That is not to say that we shouldn't make more investments, because again, with the projected growth and no indication of a flagging in that growth — and I think that's an important point that the member said — Surrey is going to continue to be a growth area probably for at least the next one or two, or maybe more, decades.

We know that further investments will need to be made. We respect that. But I did want to put on the record that there have been ten new schools. I mentioned earlier in the Legislature — I think it was in a question period response — that Adams Road Elementary was an example of a new school that was just about to open. I'm sure it will be a welcome addition to the fleet of schools that exist in Surrey.

I also want to just say a couple of things about portables and modulars and the investment for kindergarten as well.

[1605]

I know the member for Surrey-Fleetwood is anxious to engage in the debate as well. As I'm saying this, I am so pleased that in the greatest non-partisan fashion, he is smiling and nodding as I am laying out the investments that have been made over the past decade. He is clearly delighted by the magnitude — and, apparently, the surprising magnitude — of the investments. I know it's difficult for him to constrain himself, and I know he'll soon have an opportunity to leap into this to tell me more.

So in terms of the challenge around portables, I think we should talk a little bit about that too. It is an important point. As a student, I think, for a number of the years that I went to school, I was in a portable. A portable is not necessarily an optimal place to be receiving classroom instruction, but it's not a bad place either.

We should note that, in fact, when we are adding the modulars for all-day kindergarten or for other purposes, those modulars are of a construction standard that is pretty close to a permanent school. This is a structure that in terms of windows, interior fixtures, design, quality, expected life span — we're looking at about 40 years. These are excellent structures which are not portables. They can be moved, but they are not portables in the sense of the portables that many of us are accustomed to.

I should also note this. I think that the peak of portables in Surrey school district came about 1998 at 363 portables. Some say it was the tenth largest school district in the province at that time just with portables. But that's not an observation I'd make because that would strain, I think, the non-partisan spirit which I'm reflecting in my comments here today.

I would note, though, that today there are a total of about 250 portables in use in Surrey school district, and 40 of those are being used for construction. So in reality there are about 210 portables, and I think we will be seeing the replacement of a number of those in the years ahead as well.

I hope that rounds out the story a little bit in respect to the member's very important questions and observations. Again, I'll just conclude on this note. I've certainly heard very good arguments from this member, from members on the B.C. Liberal side of the House, from the Surrey school district and from the Ministry of Education that all point to additional investment in Surrey, which will recognize the very strong growth that Surrey school district has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy in the decade ahead.
[ Page 7170 ]

H. Bains: As much as anyone can try in this House, it never fails to have this minister always get involved in politics rather than the reality of the day. As much as I tried, I guess that's the place that they want to play the game. But I won't go there, Minister. I will not go there because it is a serious matter.

We can all play with numbers, and the Surrey school district knows about those numbers. The parents know about those numbers. They know that there hasn't been any capital investment to expand a single classroom — in a real classroom — since 2005-2006, other than the portables. The other capital funding has been the seismic upgrade, as we are advised.

The minister likes to talk about the 1990s. He would like to talk about this and always go back to since-2001 numbers. But no one argues with the minister that between 2001 and 2006, there was investment in the capital investment to expand the classroom capacity. But since 2005-2006 there hasn't been any.

[1610]

That's exactly what the Surrey board of education has said in their letter to the minister. This is exactly what they have said. "The Surrey school district has grown by more than 2,700 students since 2005-2006 and is expected to have continuous growth for several years." Then they continue on to say that the Surrey school district has not received government approval for additional space projects since the 2005-2006 capital plan. This is Laurae McNally's letter, which has been signed, dated the 26th of October 2009.

This is the resolution that the school district and the board of education have passed. Those are their numbers. The minister continues to play with those numbers.

I have a chart here that was provided to me by them that shows that between 1999 and 2000 there was $516 million, plus one additional school, of capital investment to increase classroom capacity. Since 2001 to 2006 it's only $87 million to increase the classroom capacity. So I think that's what the difference is.

We can play with the numbers; we can move them around, but the fact still remains that there are students that are going to the portables. Some parents are worried that their children may never see a real classroom.

The minister talks about the standard of construction. These are the portables. They are hot in summertime because there's no air-conditioning in them. There are no washrooms attached to them. Many students will complain that they have to stand in a lineup for 15, 20 minutes in order it use the washrooms. I think that is not acceptable in this day and age in British Columbia.

The minister talked about or tried to justify, although all politically rather than through facts, what is happening in the Surrey school district. Earl Marriott School students had to walk out. That is a reality of today. They had to walk out of their classrooms to make a point that they don't have classrooms to go to.

They don't even have a physical space to put any more portables at that school. That's how bad the situation is. Now they have ended up doing shift work, where the parents have to juggle between their schedule and the students' schedule. One student goes earlier; the other student goes later, so they have to make arrangements how to pick them up and drop them off at school.

The situation is serious. It's not political rhetoric. It's not a political statement for us to make here. I'd like the minister, if he could, to spend some time talking about whether the capital funding is coming and when it is coming to expand the classroom capacity so that those students — at least the new students coming in the new year, which I'm sure will not be any less than last year — don't end up going into portables, so that there is at least another school or two schools or three schools.

They're talking about ten new schools that they need today. So if the minister doesn't start right now, it'll be years before these students will see a real classroom, because it does take three or four years to build a school, even if you start it today.

That's my take on this. I know the minister would like to continue to play around with the numbers, and I don't want to go there anymore. The minister knows, the school district knows, and everyone else knows.

I do want to talk about the other important issue. That is CommunityLINK.

The Chair: Member, could I interrupt you just for a moment for an introduction in the House? We'll come right back.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: I thank the member for giving me some space here.

I am pleased to introduce, although they can't see my big bald head from where they are, a school group from North Cariboo Christian School from Quesnel — about 40 students or so and a number of accompanying adults. I had a great opportunity to be outside with them and answer a series of questions.

One of the things I failed to mention is that one of the important works in this chamber is also debating the budget. You're here in a timely fashion. The Minister of Education is debating with the opposition the budget assigned to the school system, so you can watch with interest, because what happens in your classrooms is impacted by this debate, whether you understand that or not.

I ask the members of this House to please make the kids from North Cariboo Christian School feel welcome.

[1615]

Debate Continued

H. Bains: Another important issue, which is…. I guess there are only two districts, school district 36 and
[ Page 7171 ]
school district 43, that are in a similar situation as far as per-student funding is concerned on a CommunityLINK program.

I think that this issue, again, going back many ministers, has been brought to their attention. The closest that one minister came to it, with my debate in estimates, was about two years ago. She said that they understood the issue and would try to fix it before the next budget. It never happened. The minister got changed. Now there is a new minister. Hopefully, the new minister will also take this issue seriously and try to fix it.

This is a program that actually pays for those students whose parents cannot afford either lunch programs or the field trip fees that may be needed. The money goes towards those students for the lunch program and the field trips. These are the students that are actually in real need. I'm not saying: "Why are the other students getting more money?" I'm sure that those students are in just as dire need as our students in Surrey are.

The matter that I'm raising with the minister is that our students in Surrey also deserve at least equal treatment when it comes to those programs. Now, those programs…. We are so low that the school district is saying that they may have to take this out of their operating budget, which means again money comes out of their classroom learning. By comparison, Surrey school students on a per-capita basis when compared to some of the other districts, some of the other districts are getting four and a half times more than Surrey, and the same goes with Coquitlam.

Again, rather than being political…. But it is a real issue, and the issue is that it is affecting the classroom learning of our students because the money comes out of there in order to pay for the lunch program and the field trips.

My question to the minister is: what has he done in order to try to bring some equity back into this system so that the students in Surrey can also enjoy the same benefits as some of the other students do, so that the district doesn't have to take money out of their classroom learning, out of their operating funds, and the students don't stay hungry and go on to enjoy those services that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised very important questions about CommunityLINK, and I will attempt to give him a thoughtful and non-partisan answer to that important question that he has raised.

Regrettably though, I would say, Madam Chair, in terms of the member's analysis of investments in Surrey school district, it was anything other than non-partisan. Indeed, our joint non-partisan voyage was remarkably brief. He returned very quickly to forming some conclusions, among which was that the government had not made any investments in education in the Surrey school district since 2005.

That obliges me to point out to the member this. In 2006 we saw the completion of Cambridge Elementary, a new 400-capacity school, over $8 million invested; Panorama Ridge Secondary, a new 1,100-capacity school, total investment over $25 million; Pacific Heights Elementary, close to $8 million invested; Chimney Hill Elementary, close to 3 million invested; White Rock Elementary, over $10 million invested.

South Newton, east area elementary — a site acquisition. A site acquisition at Woodward Hill. Grandview Heights. Douglas area elementary. In 2008 the new Rosemary Heights Elementary, a 350-capacity school and almost $11 million invested. In 2009 Clayton village, Northeast Elementary — a site acquisition. In 2009 close to $13 million at Hazelgrove Elementary.

[1620]

I hope I'm not offending the member with all of these investments.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, still delighted. That's good. There's still a trace of non-partisanism that is circulating through the chamber, and I am delighted by that.

In 2010 Woodward Hill Elementary, over $14 million invested in a new 450-capacity elementary school. Of course, we've referenced Adams Road Elementary, and I'm sure the members will be joining me at the grand opening of Adams Road Elementary in just a few days — an investment of $11 million in Adams Road Elementary.

The last point. Again, this is very, very important to note. In terms of full-day kindergarten in Surrey alone, this year there's a $25.8 million investment. We'll see 36 classroom conversions, 26 new modular classrooms, and additions at Cambridge Elementary, Chimney Hill Elementary, Hillcrest Elementary, A.J. McLellen Elementary, Hazelgrove Elementary and T.E. Scott Elementary — the addition of many new classrooms in those schools, the total value of which is almost $26 million.

Those are significant. Again, I didn't lay out those to be provocative or to rub the opposition members' noses in it. I did it in the most open and honest and non-partisan spirit which one can muster. But it is important, when members make observations like: "The government has made no investment in Surrey since 2005," that I provide them with the detailed record of, in fact, what has been invested. It is huge and substantial — over the decade close to a quarter-billion dollars invested in schools.

I don't say that to diminish the member's argument that new investments are needed. I don't diminish or disparage that argument at all. There will be investments made, and I appreciate when this member and that member and members on my side of the House tell me how important it is to have investments in Surrey. I
[ Page 7172 ]
respect those arguments because of the growth that is occurring in the Surrey school district.

I can counsel patience to the members. We are working very hard with respect to the capital plan with the Surrey school district and other school districts that are experiencing growth and need, as a consequence of that growth. I can tell you that a very important part of what we do as a ministry is attempting to ensure that we do that capital program in the most thoughtful and comprehensive way possible.

The member has also raised, in his most recent question, the issue of CommunityLINK. CommunityLINK is, of course, some funding for school meals and other important purposes. About $51 million is distributed annually across the province through CommunityLINK to deal with some pressures on the vulnerable student population in our schools. It is an important program.

The member has rightly raised questions and concerns about the way in which the formula is structured and has questioned, in fact, whether the formula generates an appropriate division of that $51 million across the 60 school districts in the province. I actually share a number of the concerns that the member has in respect of CommunityLINK. It is an area that I am looking at and looking at very intensively right now. I hope that we can have a look at the formula and perhaps, in the best non-partisan fashion we can construct, come to a better program or a better formula around CommunityLINK.

But in terms of Surrey itself, it is important to note that in 2004-2005, Surrey CommunityLINK funding was $2.7 million. It grew by $800,000 in '07-08, grew to $3.8 million in '08-09 and grew to $3.825 million in 2010-11. We've advised Surrey school district that the funding would be the same in the coming year.

[1625]

As I told the school district, I am reviewing the CommunityLINK formula. I'm proud that our government has been able to maintain the $51 million funding despite severe economic pressures.

What we have here in CommunityLINK is a program that has been in place since 1996. The same so-called formula that has driven CommunityLINK has been in place since 1996. The challenge is that that formula is not as sensitive to shifts in student populations over time as it should be. As a consequence, the member rightly observes that Surrey is underserved by the formula in relation to what it should be.

I am looking forward to improving the formula. I'd make this offer. As we look at the formula, I'd be glad to come and sit down with the NDP caucus and get your ideas and get your advice on how we can improve the formula. I'm glad to do that. Or, if that's an uncomfortable situation — I can imagine that you'd feel quite threatened, potentially, by my presence in your caucus room — I would be delighted to hear all of the constructive thoughts that can be generated by the opposition.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is so exciting. It's so much like question period now — that I'm talking and other people are talking at the same time. The students are getting a sense of what a delightful chamber and constructive chamber this is.

I'd be delighted to hear the best ideas of the opposition, because one of the things that might occur as we take $51 million, and if we say Surrey should get more, then it's possible that in the reallocation others might get less. So I think it's important that we have the opposition be a part of the restructuring of the CommunityLINK program. In the finest non-partisan spirit of this chamber, we move to a program that is embraced across, as someone said earlier, the street of this House.

I do look forward to a submission from this member and from other members of the House with respect to CommunityLINK. It is an important program. It's a vital program. If we can improve the funding formula, I am keen to do that and I am keen to hear the ideas of the members with respect to how to do that.

J. Brar: One of the good skills this minister has is that he can speak forever without giving the answer to any question — right? But I will still try to ask questions to the minister.

The question here is a serious one. We're talking about the city of Surrey, and the city of Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the province and in the country. We welcome almost 1,000 new people every month. The member for Surrey-Newton has made that case as well, particularly around the schools. So 7,300 students right now are in portables, which is almost 10 percent of the total population. The minister is well aware of that. In 2010 over 5,800 babies were born in the city of Surrey, and I assume that that trend will continue, with minor adjustments, in the future.

Having said that, we also have about 10,000 new students since 2001. That's a massive growth. I understand the minister can stand up and list all these schools and everything, but the reality is, as the member for Surrey-Newton said, that the city of Surrey, the Surrey school district has not received any capital funding since 2005-2006.

This is not me saying it. This is not the member of the opposition saying it. This is a resolution passed by the Surrey school district and signed by the chairperson, Laurae McNally, of the board of education of Surrey school district.

[1630]

Now, this says: "Whereas the Surrey school district has not received government approval for additional space projects since the 2005-2006 capital plan." This is what this letter from the city of Surrey officials says. So I would like to put that on the record — that Surrey did
[ Page 7173 ]
not receive any capital funding. There may be projects which were approved earlier and finished after 2005. That's possible. I understand that. But in reality, it did not receive any capital funding.

So having said that…. I'm a little reluctant to ask this question again, because the minister will stand up and read the whole story again, but I would appreciate if the minister can commit — this is a serious issue — capital funding for building new classrooms, for building new schools, or at least commit the time frame of when he's going to commit new funding. I will appreciate that. I would enjoy, certainly, listening to the answer that the minister can provide.

Hon. G. Abbott: I always appreciate the constructive advice of this member. In this case, more than ever, do I appreciate his constructive advice.

Again, it is very important. I have said on more than one occasion now on the event of these estimates that Surrey, as the fastest-growing area of the province, with a fast-growing student population, needs to have supplemental investments made in schools in Surrey. We are making one of those investments this year in the $25.8 million list of expansion improvements, additions to elementary schools that are a part of full-day kindergarten.

Again, I know the member loves to say that we haven't done anything and somebody back in 1898 or 1998 or one of those times did everything, but of course, that is not an accurate reflection of reality.

We are making a big investment around full-day kindergarten in Surrey. We have made, over the decade…. We can debate about whether a funding approval came in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 or whatever. The fact is that those schools were constructed and completed in that time period, and the government of British Columbia invested a quarter-billion dollars in new schools in Surrey over that ten-year period from 2001 to 2011.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, that is not to be quarrelsome with the member. He always suspects, I think, that I'm attempting to be quarrelsome with him, and before I even complete my sentences, jumps to conclusions about what I'm saying. Again, I am trying to agree.

I'm desperately, furiously trying to agree with the member that incremental investment is needed in Surrey. I respect his argument, and I agree with him. I don't make those decisions on my feet in estimates.

We make those decisions based on capital plans, which are generated as a product of the collaborative partnership between the Surrey school district and the Ministry of Education. Those capital plans then move through processes of government, including Treasury Board. I can tell the member that we put great effort and great interest into the Surrey capital plan and the capital plan for other school districts in the province, because in some portions of the province, most acutely in Surrey, we are seeing those pressures of growth.

J. Brar: I would like to move on to a new question. The question is…. In the fall of 2011 two Surrey high schools are being forced to adopt a modified schedule to address the issue of overcrowding. Students have to attend school beginning at 7:50 a.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[1635]

This schedule will see students who would normally support their families with before- and after-school child care for young siblings no longer being able to provide that child care. So that's one I would like to ask the minister. Has the minister consulted the Surrey families to listen to their concerns on this issue? And the second one is: what will the minister do to provide or to make sure they have sufficient child care spaces to address this modified schedule which they have to live with?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member concluded a broader dissertation with the question of whether I had met with anyone from Surrey in respect of the issues around the modified schedule, and the answer is yes. I had the opportunity to meet with, in addition to the MLAs who I have met with, the mayor of Surrey, the school district to talk about that. At a separate meeting I had the opportunity to meet with a parent advisory council, with student representatives — and parents, obviously. So yes, I do understand that there are concerns.

I should note for the member that the Ministry of Education mandates the minimum time of education over the course of a year. What we do not mandate is precisely how the school district should deliver it. I had a brief discussion of this with other members and certainly invited the comments of the opposition if they wished to provide them around whether we should take away from school districts the opportunity for a modified schedule, sometimes referred to as an unbalanced calendar, where, for example, the school district may decide to add some minutes to an instructional day and take a longer spring break period or whatever.

These are decisions which we leave in the hands of school districts. We say: "You need so many instructional hours in the course of a year, but how you deliver those we will leave in your capable hands."

I know that the decision around the modified schedule has been a somewhat controversial one. It does extend the school day, and that is not an unusual circumstance in a time of construction, but it is a relatively unusual circumstance in this case, and it does speak to the member's point about incremental investments in the capital side being required — so a fair point. I give the member that.

[1640]
[ Page 7174 ]

That having been said, I think we've always felt, as well, that if school districts can use their facilities for a longer band of time, it in fact is a positive thing. It is good when school facilities are used, for example, outside an eight-hour period during the day. It embodies a broader range of community and other uses. Broader use, from an educational perspective, can be a positive thing as well. I know there has been some initial controversy around the modified schedule. Whether that will continue to be so — perhaps not — we'll see.

I should also note that our understanding is that Surrey school district does not directly provide child care facilities themselves. We understand that they have provided an opportunity for private sector providers to come on site and to provide those, but the Surrey school district doesn't directly provide them themselves.

Now, the member is right. Again, as Surrey is constrained by growth and the need for new space, in some cases there may have been a collision between the availability of that space for child care providers and the need for that space for students. Again, a fair point from the member, and I'm not disputing that.

It goes back to this point: that in a high-growth area like Surrey, we need to provide incremental growth. I've provided some context and detail on the process that will lead to that incremental investment. With the remarkable patience that this member exhibited, back when I was a Health Minister, on Surrey Memorial Hospital, I'm certain that he will be both extraordinarily patient and thoughtful in this case as well.

J. Brar: Once again, I think the question…. I understand the role of the ministry, but the bottom line that caused a modified schedule is lack of space in the Surrey school district. That's the bottom line.

I appreciate that the minister understands there's a need for new capital funding and a need to build new classrooms so that Surrey school district is not under pressure to make such decisions as modified schedules. That does create a lot of challenges for working families when it comes to child care, even if child care is not being offered by the Surrey school district, because child care must be available in the neighbourhood in order to live to that new schedule. That's the issue.

With that, I will move to my last question. I know the critic of Education must have asked questions about class size and composition — if not, he may ask that, because that's an important area — but I would like to ask one question on that as it relates to the city of Surrey.

In 2010 over 20 percent of Surrey's high school classrooms had three or more kids with special needs. With class size and composition now being negotiated, I would like to ask the minister: how will the minister address the overcrowding issue in Surrey and maintain class composition and size limits as per the act, in law?

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Notwithstanding the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision on Bills 27 and 28, for the period in time ahead, at least until next year, the provincial law of 2006 respecting class size remains in place, and that does lay out numbers in terms of children with special learning needs in the classroom.

In circumstances where there are more than three identified special needs children in a class, it is required by the law that the principal must consult with the classroom teacher and that in other circumstances, the superintendent and the principal must confirm that the learning situation is appropriate — where, again, they go beyond the three special needs in the classroom. So that's the situation that exists today.

I would refer the member…. Just for brevity here — because I'm certain there are others who wish to raise questions — I'd say this. Yesterday your Education critic and I had what I thought was a very thoughtful and constructive discussion about the area of class composition and the issue of effective management of special needs in the classroom.

I do think that is an area where we need to improve and where we can improve. So I look forward to more thoughtful work with all of our educational partners, including the B.C. Teachers Federation, on that important area of educational delivery.

M. Sather: My school district, which is district 42, is in a serious deficit situation — like, I guess, many school districts are — looking a $2.5 million deficit, which I think is now about $2.2 million. They voted to change the calendar. Spring break is going to be stretched out to ten days, and there will another day with no school in November. These certainly aren't good indicators for a positive education system, and I'm sure the minister must be concerned about that throughout the province and hopefully in my district as well.

They've done other measures too. They've gone to one-ply toilet paper. Car washes and bake sales are being done to try to make ends meet. I don't know if the minister had the opportunity to hear all those details, but one of the trustees said to me: "You know, if it wasn't so sad, it would be comical."

I want to know from the minister if this is what schools are now forced to do to make ends meet.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's thoughtful intervention into the estimates debate of the Ministry of Education.

We're talking here of school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Just so that we all understand what we're talking about, in terms of enrolment, back in 2001-2002 the school district had an enrolment of just over 15,000, and that's where they peaked out.

[1650]
[ Page 7175 ]

We have seen that school district since 2001-2002 decline now to likely just under 14,000. Notwithstanding that, this is a school district that has seen their funding grow from $85,640,430 in 2000-2001. It has now grown to $112,635,526. The per-pupil formula or grant has grown from $5,737 in 2000-2001 to $8,035 in 2011-2012. That's the estimate of what it will be. The current is $7,929.

The member said that the school district is running a deficit. That is not so. They did have a deficit in 2001 of $350,343, but since that time they have had accumulated operating fund surpluses every year. It has been in 2003, $3,522,544, growing as high as $4,975,954 in 2007.

They have, in response to the constructive suggestions of the Auditor General and the ministry, been gradually reducing their accumulated operating fund surplus over the years, but even in 2010 it remains $2,914,948. So while they are gradually reducing, and quite appropriately, their operating fund surplus, I see nothing in the suggestion that has been made by the member of underfunding of this school district by the ministry.

I'm glad once again — although I've done it a couple of times — to compare what has been funded by the province to what was promised by the NDP opposition in their campaign platform of 2009. But I won't do that now unless the member really wants to hear it. I don't know whether he's been a part of the estimates previously during the times that I've recited that, but I'm glad to do it. I wanted to put the facts on the record.

M. Sather: Well, the school district knows of which they speak. These are the figures that come from the superintendent and the treasurer. They tell me that they're in a shortfall, and they wouldn't be going about some of the measures that they're having to do if they weren't. They don't do it joyfully. They don't do it just because they want to. They do it because they have to.

Just recently there were a hundred students and parents that showed up at the school board office protesting the impending cuts that the board finds itself in the position, probably — hopefully not, and the minister might be able to help — where they may have to make these cuts to the music programs both at the elementary level and at the secondary level.

I don't know what the minister would have to say to them, but I did get an e-mail recently from Sarah Richards. She's a student at school district 42, and she asked me some questions that I thought would be more useful to pass on to the minister for his response. You know, the parents and the kids understand the value of band and music programs. It keeps kids in school. It's a socializing tool, and to lose those are very concerning to them.

[1655]

Sarah asked me, which I'll pass on to the minister: "What are your thoughts on the decision that may have to be made by the district for them to lose their music programs?"

Hon. G. Abbott: Can the member tell me what the shortfall is that leads them to not provide the program that Sarah has participated in?

M. Sather: I'm glad to repeat it. The school district is dealing with the requirement…. They've got to balance their budget by the end of June, as the minister knows. They've got $2½ million to go. They've got to find cuts somewhere, and unfortunately, this is one of the areas that they're looking at.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I would just observe that today we provided the school district with $146,554 that they had not anticipated in their budget. That's why I asked the member what their band program cost or their music program cost. It's always delightful to hear how there is not enough money, yet what I said at the start….

These were not figures that we made up. These figures from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, school district 42, are their figures. It shows that despite the declining enrolment in that district, there has been a substantial increase in operating funding and that this district has been gradually reducing, and I think very responsibly…. I don't want to attribute any of the member's thoughts on this to the school district. They seem to be operating very effectively to me.

M. Sather: I'm not sure what the minister is talking about. It may have to do with the money that school boards have to have in abeyance to pay their teachers at a later time. I think the minister realizes those kinds of circumstances.

I want to go on, because I'm sure the minister….

Interjection.

M. Sather: I hope the minister — and I hope the member opposite there — wants to hear from families in British Columbia.

This is a family. This is a grade 11 student, and she's speaking for a whole bunch of families in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I would hope that the members opposite would be interested.

She asks the minister also: "What are your suggestions for improvements, and do you have a platform for action on this issue?"

Hon. G. Abbott: We haven't heard from the school district that they require any assistance in respect of making appropriate decisions on behalf of the school district that they serve. But if they have some questions in that regard, we'd be glad to receive them. Generally, what we find is that school districts and school boards
[ Page 7176 ]
of education make thoughtful decisions in respect of the important matters that they are charged with.

This school district, by all appearances, given that they continue to have an accumulated operating fund surplus of almost $3 million…. It appears to me that they are doing a good job of managing.

What school districts will sometimes do is set out a very expansive agenda for the year ahead and then try to match the available funding, which is coming almost exclusively from the province, to that program. Sometimes they don't get to do everything that they wanted to do. That is certainly a possibility, hon. Member, but I can tell you that this school district appears to be operating in a responsible fashion.

[1700]

I'm sure that they'll pick up the content of our discussion. If they need any assistance in terms of making difficult decisions, we can provide that. But they haven't requested it, hon. Member. Until they do, I am going to trust in them to make wise and responsible decisions on behalf of the taxpayers who elected them.

M. Sather: The minister talks about expansive programs. I mean, this is the band program, the music program they've had for years. This is nothing new.

They're also looking at having to cut $180,000 out of the special education budget. I don't know. Again, maybe that's something that's expansive and not particularly useful or required by the members opposite. I would hope that's not the case, but it would appear that perhaps it may be the case. I don't know of what the minister speaks, actually.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Continue, Member.

M. Sather: I don't know that I'm going to get any satisfaction from the minister on this point, but he's welcome to continue his suggestions on there.

Sarah's last questions were: "What are the reasons for your suggestion, and how would that suggestion help?" Well, the minister hasn't given any reasons for his suggestion other than to try to push it onto the school board. He knows very well that they're in a very difficult situation. The minister is adept — I guess that's a word one could use charitably — at avoiding responsibility in dealing with the education problems that we have in this province.

Nonetheless, I did want to ask the minister about something else. The minister has said that per-pupil funding averages $8,330 in the province. My district tells me — this is the superintendent and the treasurer; I have to believe they know what they're talking about — that our per-pupil funding is $6,850 in Maple Ridge. That's some $1,500, or something like that, less than the average. Why is the per-pupil funding in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows that much below the average?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member here has been arguing over and over again his thesis that somehow our government has been underfunding his school district, and it is simply not so. Again, you know, I hear this on occasion from people that we should be putting out more dollars to school districts than we are, despite the fact that year over year, for the past decade, every year we have seen increases to every school district in the province, including the school district which is a portion of the member's constituency.

In order to try to ground-proof the level of funding which has come from our government, I went back and looked at who would likely be as free-spending a group as one would find in the province of British Columbia. Of course that's the political party across the floor here — that group.

If anyone would outspend us on education, it's got to be the NDP, particularly this member, who would advocate for pretty much everything under the sun. It's bound to be the NDP that would outspend us — right? So I went and looked at their program for the 2009 election. To their credit, the NDP laid out a three-year funding plan for education for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Their incremental increases for the first year were $50 million; second year, $75 million; and third year, $100 million; for an overall $225 million increase in education. So that's good. That's reasonable. That's generous. I have no quarrel and no criticism of the NDP's budget.

[1705]

Then I looked, just to see how parsimonious we had been as a ministry and as a government in relation to that free-spending NDP. As it turns out, we have actually spent $254 million, compared to the $225 million that the NDP proposed. Imagine that.

Imagine that. We had outspent the free-spending NDP by $29 million in this area. So I don't want to have this member telling me anymore that we're underfunding the system, because it's a whole lot of nonsense. It is a whole lot of nonsense.

It appears that the member's school district is monitoring this debate, because we've just received an e-mail from the school district officials saying that their school district advises that it is not cancelling — "not" is underlined — the band program. They are restructuring the band program.

The member's characterization is unfortunate and, I think, goes back to the reason why it is important to have all of the facts before forming conclusions in these important matters.

M. Sather: Well, it's good to see the minister get going. He's always such a quiet, passive sort of fellow. Once
[ Page 7177 ]
in a while, though, he gets up on his hind legs and actually makes a speech of some substance. So there you have it.

Our district is expecting $750,000 less next year from the province. That's what they're planning for.

The minister mentioned a little while ago that we got $145,000. That's a long way from $2.2 million, Minister. Thanks for the drop in the bucket.

They're also going to be facing $1½ million in additional costs next year, including increases to the MSP premiums. There's no doubt that the reality is there that school districts, including 42, are facing considerable cost pressures.

I wanted to turn to the issue of full-time versus part-time students. I'm assuming that the funding level for a part-time student is less than for a full-time student. If you're a half-time student, do you get half the funding that a full-time student gets?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, eight courses is the full-time-equivalent in the classroom. Each course is 12½ percent of full, full-time participation. Depending on how many courses a student may be taking, they are funded in proportion to the overall.

In terms of the member's assertion with respect to the budget of school district 42, it would appear — and perhaps we'll get a note from the school district confirming this — that the school district conservatively, and perhaps without any criticism, assumed that there may not be funding protection in the coming '11-12 year. In fact, there will be funding protection of $829,000.

Obviously, the member is reflecting a more pessimistic or conservative assessment — although it's hard to associate the term "conservative," necessarily, with this member — of the budget.

[1710]

M. Sather: This is another concern that my school district school board has expressed to me. Previously, it was considered full-time if you took four courses. Now it's eight. Still the district has to pay for the resources to support those students that are there in school whether they're half-time or full-time.

They make the point that having to have eight courses to be full-time is unreasonable. Students may be taking courses on line — I expect more and more are — but they don't count. That doesn't count in the assessment.

The grad programs only require 80 credits, so why would students take 96? You know, 12 credits per course, I guess. Students may have seven courses, and they're spending time, with a heavy course load, to take a free block of time. So that makes them also not a full-time student. But still, the burden is there for the school district.

They certainly don't mind supporting their students. They want to do that. I'm just pointing out to the minister that for my district — and, I guess, across the province — this is another way that it's made more difficult for school districts to be able to manage to serve the needs of our students.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to review for the member, we are going to be seeing in school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, a reduction of a few hundred students, likely, year over year. We are going to see an increase in the grant, from the province to the school district, of $829,000 — almost a million dollars — notwithstanding the fact that there are fewer students there. Again, that goes to the funding protection which the province has generously provided to the school district.

The figure I cited in terms of number of courses is in reference to the minimum requirement for graduation. But what we find is that students will take a whole range of courses over and above what is minimally required for graduation. Over time we have undertaken a calculation of how we fund the full-time FTE per school district.

Now, if the member, on behalf of the official opposition, is suggesting that we should revisit or revise or change or amend the whole way in which grants to school districts are structured, I am glad to hear a submission from him, on behalf of the opposition or perhaps from the Education critic, in this regard.

I'm glad to look at it, but again, regardless of how you might rearrange what is defined as full-time-equivalent, it is going to have the impact of just shifting dollars among school districts. I don't know if there are more part-time students in one school district than another. I have no idea about that. We can look at that if it's the position of the opposition that we ought to treat those matters differently. But in our view, that would really not accomplish anything of a valuable nature.

[1715]

M. Sather: My school district is telling me that these students are often those that are on the cusp, that may or may not stay in school. So they're asking for all the kinds of support that they need to make sure that these kids do remain in school.

I have one more question for the minister, and here, hopefully, we can end on a mutually positive note. My district says that they feel that they're in the running for a new school. The minister will know that because of the structure of school district 42 — in half of the school district the classes may not be full; in the other half the schools are overflowing — it's difficult, because of the formula, to get a new school. But they feel that they're in the running, and I just want to know if the minister can confirm that we are and that we can look forward to a new school in school district 42.

Hon. G. Abbott: Can the member provide us with a reference to a school name?
[ Page 7178 ]

M. Sather: I don't know that there's a name for the school as yet. There are several areas that they could use one. I know that the Albion area district is one of the places that they're looking at needing a new school.

Hon. G. Abbott: Two items, and I'll get to the member's last question in a moment.

Just this important clarification that the ministry does fund support blocks for secondary students who are vulnerable. So to the member's question: if a special needs student were only taking a couple of courses, we would still fund over and above that because we recognize the issue of capacity. So the funding for those with special needs is over and above what it would be in other circumstances.

With respect to the member's question about Albion, this has been and continues to be identified in the school district capital plan as their highest priority. We gave approval for the acquisition of the site by the district a couple of years ago. We respect that it remains their highest capital priority, and it is a project which remains under consideration.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about, first of all, capital planning for elementary schools in the Vancouver area. In particular, I'm interested in this one school, which is slated for development, we hope, sometime soon. That is the International Village elementary school.

Just by way of background, the Vancouver school board's number one capital planning request to the Minister of Education is for funding for the proposed International Village school, which will occupy the air space on the city's own lot. So the city is providing the site for this, and it is on the north side of Expo Boulevard, if the minister is familiar with that area.

[1720]

The proposed school will be a three-storey school, three storeys high, and would have a space for 510 students from kindergarten through to grade 12. The International Village school has been included on capital plan submissions from the Vancouver school board to the Ministry of Education for the last ten years, since 2009, and has been identified as the district's highest priority by way of capital projects. In the most recent capital plan request, which was submitted in June of 2010, it's remained the highest priority for the Vancouver school board.

The Ministry of Education and the provincial Treasury Board make, as the minister knows, all capital funding decisions. They take into consideration the submissions by the school board, but ultimately those decisions are made by government.

As of yet, the Vancouver school board has not received funding support from the government, not even to begin design development, and we know that that area is actually rapidly developing, with people moving into that area.

Why this concerns me? While the school would not be exactly in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, its proximity is close enough to Mount Pleasant in that some of the families would go to this school, should it be available. Right now the catchment school that's providing some support there is Strathcona Elementary School. There's some concern that in time you wouldn't be able to catch all the folks in that area. Therefore, some of the Strathcona residents will have to go to another catchment area, and this would be it.

So I wonder if the minister can provide some update as to what is happening with this submission. Why is it not getting the government's approval process, not even for design-planning purposes? As we know, even if you get the approval, these things take some time for it to come to fruition and wouldn't happen just overnight. I wonder if the minister can shed some light. Is there some information that's lacking from the Vancouver school board? Is there some criteria that they're not meeting? What seems to be the problem and the holdup?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the hon. member for her question. I am familiar with the Vancouver school board application for the new International Village elementary. When I had the day with Vancouver school board, one of the areas which we toured was International Village, and they took me to the site where they are proposing the elementary school. The member is right. It is the current highest priority for VSB.

[1725]

They have done all of the homework necessary in respect of this project. It lines up very well in terms of the priorities of the ministry as well. So I think it's fair to say that not only does the VSB support this project, but we support it as a ministry as well. It is one of the areas in Vancouver where there is strong population growth and, therefore, a strong case for this elementary school. The project is one that is under active consideration, and I do hope that it will be able to proceed in the future.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can give us some sort of timeline in anticipation of preliminary approval, at least to get the design work underway and so on.

I'm glad to hear that the school board's priority for this project is in line with that of the government. Hopefully that would mean that in the very, very near future there would be positive news coming forward. The minister is absolutely right; there is population demand there. There absolutely is growth, with the new developments coming on stream and families moving into the area where this school would be necessary.

I wonder if the minister can advise on timeline. What are we looking at?
[ Page 7179 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure there's too much further that I can add to my previous answer. The school district has done a very good job of putting this project together. We are proceeding down the decision path, but we are not yet at the conclusion of that decision path. Suffice it to say that I think the school district has done a good job of laying out the case for this project.

J. Kwan: I guess we'll just stay tuned, wait and see. Hopefully in this decision process, which I assume is underway at the moment…. That means it's under active consideration by the ministry and by Treasury Board. Before long, maybe, there will be an announcement with respect to that, so I'll wait. Hopefully, next year in estimates we won't be back at the same spot, asking the same question, but we shall see.

I'm going to ask the minister about another area of capital projects or initiatives. This would be in the area of seismic upgrades. I wonder. I have with me — and this might not be the most up-to-date list; off the computer, off the website, actually — the completed seismic upgrades and new school projects from 1996 to 2011. It lists all the schools that have undergone work and so on.

[1730]

I wonder if the minister could give me some quick updates on Strathcona Elementary School. I know that there's some work there. This is a tremendous school, perhaps one of the oldest schools in the entire city, actually in all of Vancouver. It's a great school servicing many, many families and has been on the wait-list for a long time to get some seismic work there. There were times when there were leaks going on in the school, where literally we had to have buckets and the like to deal with some of the upgrades that were required.

Clearly, there's a capital need in terms of upgrades but, of course, seismic as well. I wonder if the minister can advise on what's happening with Strathcona School.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to advise the member, and she knows, that Lord Strathcona is an approved seismic project under the seismic mitigation program. The Vancouver school board has been undertaking some intensive planning with respect to Lord Strathcona, not only as a seismic project. As the member probably knows, it will also be one of the neighbourhood learning centres.

Apparently the work has been dedicated to ensuring that the neighbourhood learning centre, as part of that seismic project, is appropriate to the neighbourhood's circumstances. We understand that that planning work is very near completion, and we do hope to have a project agreement completed and signed with the Vancouver school board in the relatively near future.

J. Kwan: I just want to be clear with the minister's answer. The seismic upgrading is not just for the neighbourhood learning component, but it's for the whole school — right? The plan, therefore, would impact the entire school and the structural upgrade for the school.

Hon. G. Abbott: That's correct.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Kwan: That's good news, because that's a long time waiting. I'm glad that that work is now underway, because it is a very old school with lots of history. But at the same time, it needed the work, and somehow it just wasn't on the agenda there.

I just want to ask, then, about the overall seismic upgrade plan for the province. There are obviously many other schools that require this work. I know that the ministry on their website — and I've gone through it all — in terms of some of the….

I'm not going to get into a political debate here, other than to simply say, though, that there are advocates — strong advocates, and rightfully so, parents particularly — wanting to see the government step up the seismic upgrade timeline for schools because children and educators in the schools are at tremendous risk should we ever be in a situation where we're hit with the big one. Given the most recent situations with other jurisdictions, people are acutely aware and alert about this.

I'm wondering, from the minister's point of view: will there be any changes with respect to timelines in advancing seismic upgrade work for the schools across the province of British Columbia? And what does the minister anticipate, in terms of the workplan, in getting all the schools seismically upgraded across the province?

[1735]

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of seismic mitigation is an important one. It's important that the work not only be done, obviously, but that the work be done well.

In the school districts across the province where appropriate seismic projects have been identified through the partnership between the ministry and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, we have been moving forward with school districts. I think now 134 projects have either been completed or are underway across the province, and some $680 million has been invested to date in those projects.

In terms of how timelines can be advanced or delayed with respect to a given project, there are a number of factors that can come into play. One factor is the issue of capacity. In the VSB alone some 31 projects were identified and approved. That's a huge number, and obviously, it's not possible for the school district to proceed on all 31, particularly given the complexities of the seismic work to be undertaken.

In some cases the age of the structures, as the member knows, can be an important issue. In some school
[ Page 7180 ]
buildings a portion of it might be a century old, another portion 50 years old and another portion 20 years old.

[1740]

These are not simple projects. They're complex projects from a variety of perspectives. When you layer on the heritage issues from the city of Vancouver, that also becomes an important issue, as I think the member knows, in terms of remediation of these structures. Also, there are some complex planning processes that need to be completed about what should be included or not included in the structure as well.

The member's point is a fair one. We want to see these projects proceed as quickly as they can, subject, obviously, to them being done well, because that's important additionally.

In terms of learning from some of the recent tragic events that have occurred in New Zealand, in Japan and in China, we have asked the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists to take a look at the work that has been done over the past six years, in the context of anything that may have been learned by the community of geoscientists and professional engineers from those recent earthquake tragedies and to see, based on that, whether there is any new advice they would like to provide us in terms of the strategy for completing these projects.

J. Kwan: I know time is short, so I'll just close with this comment around seismic upgrade. It is of grave concern, I know, for a lot of parents because they worry constantly with their children in the school system. If the schools are not safe and should this occur in the daytime when the children are in the school system, we just know that it's not going to be good news for anybody.

In the case of Vancouver, by way of an example, we have approximately 109 schools, minus the adult education centres, in the Vancouver system. The projects that are fully seismically upgraded in Vancouver are 20 schools, partially upgraded are three, and then there are three replacement schools and two new schools. This is according to the website of a very diligent map, so I assume that this is correct information.

That said, we're looking at 28 schools that are seismically upgraded or partially upgraded in the context of 109 schools. Some 70 percent or so of our schools are still not nearly seismically upgraded or even partially seismically upgraded, and that puts a lot of the students at huge risk in our system.

Hence, understandably, the parents are urging that the timeline be advanced and that we get on to this work, because there's just a lot of work to be done. I recognize that it is expensive. It's costly. But at the same time, it's also important work. I just want to put that on the floor for the minister's consideration, as I'm sure we will continue on this debate.

I just want to, in my last couple of minutes, raise two other issues with the minister very quickly. I wonder whether or not the ministry is looking at providing funding for the school boards, particularly those in the Lower Mainland, where there is an interest and desire for parents to send their children into schools that offer different languages. I highlight this because there's a lot of interest in my constituency but not just in my own constituency. I myself am actually interested in that as well, as I've got young kids who could benefit from this.

Clearly, I'm not advocating this just for my children but advocating this for many parents who have come to me wanting to see, for example, Mandarin immersion in our school system and fully at that level that offers the language capacity. Edmonton actually provides it, to our surprise. Working with some parents and organizations on this, we've looked into this.

I'm wondering whether or not this is something actually on the agenda. I know that the Coquitlam school district, for example, has received some funding actually from the Chinese government to provide language capacity. It's almost like winning a lottery, where the parents can actually get a spot for their child to attend. Vancouver recently started that, and it is like winning a lottery, because there are only a very small number of seats available for the students to get some language learning in their regular school system.

I'm wondering if there is any plan to advance this or to fund this on a larger scale, particularly where there's interest and demand in the school system.

[1745]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a good one. This is a kind of interesting and emerging area in terms of school districts and school boards and what they are interested in and what they are exploring. Things do seem to be changing and changing relatively quickly, and that may be a very positive thing.

We're generally, I'd say, supportive of immersion programs regardless of what language they might be in. It will be up to the school districts to form appropriate conclusions about when, for example, a Mandarin immersion program or a Korean immersion program or a Punjabi immersion program might be appropriate to the circumstances.

The issue, of course, will be around funding. We fund French immersion programs, for example, in the province to the same level that we would fund any other student or any other school. It's the same funding to the school district as in any other program. One of the reasons, we believe, why the French immersion programs have been so popular — in addition to opening up opportunities, potentially, for students in the federal public service — is that some $65 million is received annually from the federal government to help support these programs, so they are very popular.

We are, in principle, supportive. We certainly are not going to stand in the way of any school district. As I think
[ Page 7181 ]
you mentioned Coquitlam school district is doing, if they want to explore a program or a potential partnership with a non-profit or other organization to provide an immersion language program for students in their district, we certainly are not going to oppose or stand in the way. We think that's a very positive thing, but again, it is an emerging area of interest among school districts.

J. Kwan: I'll just make a quick comment about that and then ask my last question and yield the floor to my other colleagues.

It is definitely an area of interest, I think in the Lower Mainland particularly, from families who would like their children to have access to development of another language to compete globally. This is actually very important for us. And with language, as we know, the earlier you start, the better it is.

[1750]

For kids in the Edmonton situation, they actually start at kindergarten level, and they come out of that system fully fluent, which is just absolutely astounding to me. I think that in preparation for the global economy in the future, as China becomes a giant economically, we just need to make sure that those opportunities are offered.

I use the Chinese languages because that's my own natural heritage, but the minister's right. It's not restricted to just that. Clearly, India — Punjabi and other languages — should be considered as well.

We're a multicultural province, a multicultural country. While not the official language in terms of French and English…. Clearly, this is an important area, so I urge the minister to actually pursue this with the federal government, in urging the federal government to provide us support financially to our school system.

I know that the former Minister of Education was on the public record saying she supports supporting and funding the Chinese languages in our school system, but the province won't fund it. I hope that will change, and I hope that the minister will see the validity of the province participating in this regard and then also providing financial support to the school boards to materialize this.

My last question for the minister. This, of course, is something that the minister supports as well, because when he campaigned as the leader for his party, it was on his platform. That is to fund playgrounds. This is an issue that I've brought up from time to time in the Legislature here. I feel very passionate about this.

Many of the students and children in our system don't necessarily have access to extracurricular activity. There are many factors, but affordability certainly is one of them. Therefore, school playgrounds are key to that.

Funding for that, as the minister knows, has been spotty at best. The last time, the minister knows, the government tried to provide funding in the playground area has been a complete disaster.

With respect to that, I'm wondering: are there any plans for the ministry to fund the upgrade of playgrounds? Many of them, I would argue, are playgrounds that should be condemned, if they're not already condemned, because they're simply unsafe.

[1755]

Hon. G. Abbott: First, to correct a point on the record. I mentioned the federal funding for French immersion as $65 million. That is true, but it is over a four-year period. That is a four-year figure, so it is approximately $16.1 million per year from the federal government to the province for French immersion programs, totalling $65 million over four years.

On playgrounds. The first provincial funding of playgrounds, we believe, occurred in 2007-2008 when $1.53 million from gaming grants went out to schools and PACs and so on to construct or refurbish playgrounds. There was an additional $2.5 million that was utilized, again from gaming grants, in 2008-2009 for playgrounds. Overall, we understand that there were 233 projects that were undertaken with that money in the construction of new or refurbished playgrounds.

The issue for the future…. We are prepared to look where there is a safety issue with a playground, where there is a serious risk-management issue with a playground. We are prepared to consider, in consultation with the school district, utilization of an annual facility grant to deal with that safety issue, although obviously, we hope school districts don't let playgrounds get to that point.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister and staff, for being here today and answering some questions. In the time allotted that I've got, I'd like to look at a few areas: students with special needs, the carbon offsets, discussion about the funding formula and maybe something about Bill 27, Bill 28.

Coming from the north and representing three school districts: Prince Rupert, Haida Gwaii and the central coast…. It's very isolated, remote, unique and a real challenge with students with special needs and the lack of availability of the resources needed to assess students. It's an issue that a lot of school districts, including Vancouver Island, also have.

Our school district, school district 52. Thank you for your confirming your commitment to work to reduce child learning vulnerabilities. In Prince Rupert almost 60 percent of the school population is First Nations. They're one of the most vulnerable school districts, as far as the EDI, of any school district in the province. Kindergarten students are entering school…. Forty-eight percent do not meet expectations in basic skills and awareness. Our EDI results show that some of the neediest children in the province are in this school district.

The question I've got is: knowing, also, that 13 percent of the students in school district 52 fulfil the ministry
[ Page 7182 ]
requirements for special needs designation, what's the minister doing specifically to improve the availability of specialist resources for students with special needs — not only across the province but in rural and remote school districts?

[1800]

Hon. G. Abbott: The opposition Education critic and I had a long discussion yesterday with respect to special needs and support for special needs in the classroom. So I'd refer the member to the more detailed answers that were provided at that time, but I'll summarize.

We have seen, certainly over time, a growing number of identified special needs levels 1, 2 and 3 in the classroom. Although, as I laid out in some detail yesterday, the numbers have actually plateaued and appear to be declining just a little bit. Again, that may not last, but that's the current situation.

There are some 24,260 students with level 1, 2 or 3 supplemental funding. That is over and above the base per-student grant to school districts. Boards of education received, in 2010-2011, $382.9 million in levels 1, 2 and 3 supplemental funding, which was an increase of $58.3 million over the previous fiscal year.

Just to explain. Level 1 tends to be the highest-needs learners. For those learners we increased the per-student grant by $4,600, to $36,000; to the level 2 students by $2,300, to $18,300; and for level 3 special needs learners by $1,200, to $9,200 per student. As well, the province provides, in addition to that for special needs learners, supplements for ESL and for aboriginal students.

The member's question is an important one and particularly important in the northwest of our province where aboriginal learners form a high percentage of overall learners in the schools. I believe that the member is a former educator and is familiar with some of the good work that's being done and also familiar with some of the challenges which we have.

Again, with another critic earlier today we canvassed quite extensively the issue of aboriginal learning and some of the challenges there. What I think we all would agree on is the unacceptable rate of student achievement and graduation, in particular, for First Nations and aboriginal learners. We talked about some of the ways that we aim to turn that around, because it is unacceptable, and it needs to be turned around.

We talked about aboriginal enhancement agreements. We talked about some additions to the curriculum which we believe will be useful. We talked particularly about personalized learning and my belief — and I think a widely shared belief, certainly within the Ministry of Education and in many ways across all of our educational partners — that personalized learning can be hugely important not only to aboriginal learners but to all learners.

I talked a little bit about the success of the Fort Nelson school district, which has excellent results — internationally leading results — in terms of all of their learners, including aboriginal learners to the grade 3 level. So there are some remarkable successes occurring.

I would also note, and I hadn't noted this previously, that there is in British Columbia an Aboriginal Enhancement Schools Network. It is some 82 schools, involving a partnership with 400 teachers doing some great work — all projects that aim to improve achievement for aboriginal learners.

The B.C. network was established here and is supported by federal funding. It involves both band schools and public schools off of the reserve territories. This is an exciting area as well.

[1805]

I think I'd share the member's view that there is much that needs to be done, but I hope he also would share my view that there's some exciting work that's being undertaken in the province. Just a note in closing: special education funding last year for school district 52, which I believe to be the area of the member, was $4,170,770.

G. Coons: Again, it's nice to have all the facts and figures from the minister that we can easily get, but I was basically talking about the lack of resources needed to assess students with special needs.

The minister talks about plateauing. Well, in our community we incur the cost to fly specialists in a few times a year, and there's a wait-list that is horrendous. There are so many kids that are undesignated, and the class composition reflects that.

Rephrasing the question, I guess: what is the minister doing about the assessment of students in remote and rural communities where students are waiting years, if not more than that, for assessment so that they can get the funding necessary?

Hon. G. Abbott: I apologize to the member. That was an area of his first question that I didn't address, and I should have.

This is a big challenge. Assessment needs to be done; early identification needs to be done. Sometimes it involves professionals or paraprofessionals whose availability might well be in question. The availability of those professionals and paraprofessionals might not only be an issue, for example, in the Lower Mainland where many of them reside. It becomes particularly an issue in the northwest, which the member represents and where it is difficult to get these kinds of specialized professionals and paraprofessionals to reside.

We recognize that this is a very real challenge. It is not just a British Columbia challenge; it's a North American challenge. Every jurisdiction in North America is looking for these kinds of professionals to do the early assessments.

We have the only institution provincially that educates the professionals we need — UBC. So in the absence of
[ Page 7183 ]
sufficient numbers coming out of UBC, what we need to do is, I think, work with all of our educational partners to identify ways in which, perhaps in some cases, appropriate assessment work can be undertaken by the teachers themselves.

Alternatively, it's trying to understand how we can make the best use of the professionals available and in some cases to try to get perhaps a more favourable scope of practice in terms of the distribution and the utilization of skills.

We recognize it's a challenge, and it's something that we are working hard to remedy.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. The carbon credits or carbon offsets. We brought that up this week.

The Times Colonist basically said: "Carbon Credits Hurt Schools, Help EnCana." Vancouver Sun: "B.C. Liberals' 'Green' Policy Hurts Kids, Gifts Big Business." The Calgary Sun, Toronto Sun: "B.C. Blunders in Carbon Sinkhole." It says, "The provincial government is forcing the transfer of millions of tax dollars from cash-strapped schools, hospitals and other public institutions by requiring them to buy carbon offsets" and benefiting companies like EnCana.

I'm just wondering: would the minister change policy to allow districts to accumulate the funds they would otherwise pay to the Pacific Carbon Trust and allow them to use them for local energy-efficient projects? Would he consider that?

[1810]

Hon. G. Abbott: I should first of all note, and I can appreciate, that not every member of the Legislature is riveted on the Education debates, with the possible exception of the Finance critic, who I know has been a faithful viewer of these proceedings right from the moment they began. But I know that other members may not have been tuned in with as much faith as the opposition Finance critic.

We did have a spirited discussion about this earlier, and I probably shouldn't take as much time as we did back when we had the earlier debate. But let me just sort of give you the high points, because there were many, and I wouldn't want to repeat them all. For example….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: So 613 is the number I ultimately get to? That is awesome. I knew that it was a big number like that, but it wasn't immediately coming to mind. I want to thank the opposition Health critic for helping me; 613 is a fabulous number. Now, what does it mean?

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Okay, quit interrupting me.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair.

Hon. G. Abbott: Please bring the member to order. He's hectoring me and confronting me with figures that I don't understand.

In March 2011 the ministry reimbursed school districts $3 million for carbon taxes paid during 2010. So on carbon tax, the dollars go back to school districts. I know there is concern about offsets, and the member cited a document or a news source which I'm sure we all appreciate enormously, the Victoria Times Colonist and their enlightened views with respect to this matter.

The boards do have an offset cost on emissions. School district emissions for 2010 will total about 180,000 tonnes, which requires about $4.5 million in offset purchases. So — this is useful information for the member and apparently for the Victoria Times Colonist — during the past year the boards have received, in addition to the $3 million in aforementioned carbon taxes paid to the districts, an additional $7.7 million from the ministry under the energy-efficient mechanical upgrades capital program for upgrades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That title is one which the gentleman behind me made up. He spent several months developing that title. It is the EEMUCP program, which is one of the handiest acronyms I've seen in government. Sorry. They're supposed to be stone-faced when they're in here, and I'm not helping that cause.

In addition, boards recently received almost $6.6 million from the government's public sector energy conservation agreement, or the PSECA fund, to upgrade their energy infrastructure and further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. During the past three years boards will have received $11.1 million in total from the PSECA fund to upgrade their energy infrastructure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

So to the member: we appreciate that the boards of education would like to see their carbon offset dollars go back to them. That is what we are able to do through PSECA and through the other programs. To the extent we can do more, we want to build that partnership with the school districts.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. I just wanted one or two questions about Bills 27 and 28, the Charter challenge. Last April the court declared the legislation that stripped teacher collective bargaining unconstitutional and invalid and an infringement on freedom of association guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and interference in bargaining rights.

I remember this quite well. I was a teacher during all of this and saw the end result of what happened in classrooms, as far as students with special needs and assistance and library aides and library services.

[1815]
[ Page 7184 ]

So I'm just wondering. It only took a week of time for this government to strip the bargaining rights of teachers throughout the province. I don't understand why it's taking a year to fix it. By not appealing it…. Why is the ministry telling school boards not to put stripped language back into the collective agreements?

Hon. G. Abbott: This goes to the point, I guess, of the management of estimates. Far be it from me to be critical of anyone or any issue of management, but we have canvassed this fully yesterday with the opposition Education critic. I appreciate that everyone, excluding the opposition Finance critic, is not glued to this debate through the now many hours that it has been undertaken, but we did do a full canvassing of it.

I don't want to be dismissive of the member's concern. We did talk about 27 and 28 and the processes and what we hope to achieve. I think there's a meeting scheduled between our team, the government team, and the B.C. Teachers Federation in the very near future. Presumably, in the days ahead they will develop a structure for discussion of the potential remediation of the issues that are raised by the Supreme Court.

The member needs to undertake a careful reading of the judgment before forming his conclusions about what is embodied both in the bill and in the Supreme Court of B.C.'s judgment with respect to it. The Supreme Court did not find that there was bad faith on the part of the provincial government. They believed that the provincial government was pursuing legitimate and pressing public policy goals in terms of what they did.

But in relation to evolving law or case law on the constitution and its relationship to labour relations, things have changed over the decade. They changed particularly after the Bill 29 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007.

We will be pursuing the opportunity to follow the direction of the court. The one year that the member referenced was not a year that the government identified or the minister identified. The year was the year provided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia as what they believed to be an appropriate time period for the parties to sit down and to develop an appropriate way to remedy the issues that had been engaged by the Supreme Court's decision.

G. Coons: Just going back to that, the decision made by the government was based on very questionable and unreliable information and data, I think, from their proponents.

My one last question on teacher evaluation: are there any current discussions with teachers, BCTF, regarding teacher evaluation with the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issues around teacher evaluation are collective bargaining issues and will be dealt with at the collective bargaining table under the leadership of BCPSEA.

[1820]

B. Simpson: I want to start off just by canvassing some questions that I have from some of the folks I'm working with in school district 27 around the rural school grant. As I raised in question period, we're dealing with Big Lake School, and I know school district 27 is one of those school districts with a lot of rural and rural-remote schools that need to be dealt with.

For the minister's edification, I meet regularly with the northern school trustees and with ministers — the other MLAs from that area who serve in cabinet. We canvass this often — that issue of: how do we address 21st-century education when we still have facilities that are often rural and remote, etc.?

School district 27 has been trying hard to keep schools open, in particular Likely School, Horsefly School and Big Lake School. I'm working with the Big Lake PAC just now. They're wondering what the constraints or restrictions are on the use of the rural school grant. Is it actually supposed to go to the school, or is it an allocation to the general revenue of the school district that is based on what remote rural schools or rural schools they have?

Hon. G. Abbott: It goes to the school district as part of their overall allocation. It is not directed or targeted by the ministry.

B. Simpson: With respect to that, if the school district does make a decision, and it's often a business decision relative to the grant versus continuing to operate the school — again, I'm doing this for the public record for these folks — does that grant, then, disappear? If they choose to close Big Lake School or any particular school and they're getting a grant for that school, does that grant stop coming to the school district because of that school closure?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer would be no. The school district is funded on a per-student basis. Presumably, the school district would be making wise decisions with respect to the provision of educational opportunities for each of those students that they are funded for.

B. Simpson: Just so I'm clear, and it is my ignorance in this case because I know there's the per-student…. But then, how is the grant…? They refer to it as a grant for having a physical plant that's a rural school open — right? My understanding is that they get an additional increment over and above the per-student funding if they have a rural-remote school like they have in Likely or Big Lake or whatever.

The question is: if the school closes, does that grant disappear? With respect, I guess I'm asking two questions.
[ Page 7185 ]
Is there not an incremental grant, and if so, does that grant disappear if the school district decides to close that school?

[1825]

Hon. G. Abbott: A very good question. Thank you for it.

The way in which school district funding is arranged tries to be reflective of the special challenges that geography or many other factors might impose on a given school district.

As I know the member appreciates, with 60 school districts across the province, we have school districts, in some cases, which are very large. They might be the size of a European nation yet only have a couple of hundred or a few hundred students within their bounds. So they're going to have some special challenges. Then of course we have, at the other end of the spectrum, school districts like Surrey or Vancouver, which may have 65,000 or 70,000 students within quite a small geographic area.

The formula tries to reflect the different conditions and challenges that exist. To answer the member's question: for his school district, number 27, there will be a base per-pupil grant. That will be supplemented by a rural-remote grant, which will reflect dispersion, climate, distance — those sorts of things.

If, for example — we're hypothesizing here but trying to connect the dots from the member's earlier question — a Big Bar School, which was slated for closure, were to close, the school district would not lose that rural-remote grant supplement. What they would lose, though, is an additional supplement which the school gets for small communities and rural, isolated communities. Big Bar may or may not; we don't know.

Hypothetically, let's say it is one of those situations. If they were getting a grant because they were maintaining this school, and they chose to shut it down, they would lose this grant. They would keep the earlier one, but they would lose this one. I know this gets to a level of complexity.

For school district 27, for unique geographic circumstance they currently get $6.053 million. I know the member's district is large, dispersed, with a lot of small communities, so this is a useful question to ask, without a doubt.

B. Simpson: I do have another area that I want to canvass here. Again, just for clarity, Big Lake School is one of the many schools that are in there. If the PAC wanted to know…. I'm working with them to work with their school trustees to resolve the issue. What the issue is, is the year-over-year kind of retraction. It's a population issue and various other things.

This coming year the proposal is being made to collapse the school down to one classroom of about 23, 24 kids — three kindergarten, all-day kindergarten, some special needs kids, one teacher in one classroom for four days. The differential, as the parent advisory committee looks at it, is maybe a difference of $17,000 or $20,000 for a 0.4 teacher.

What they're trying to understand is the decision matrix for the school trustees relative to just outright closing the school and being done with it. If they keep the school open, does it become, if you will, a profit centre for the school district? The net operating costs of the school are less than the grant for the school, which allows some of the money to go elsewhere. That's what they're trying to figure out.

Maybe for the sake of estimates here, I can posit that to the minister. Maybe if he could get a staff person to try and help me at some point to figure out what the answer is for that particular…. Then I can just equip them with appropriate knowledge for the community to make a decision on what they want to do with that school. If I could ask the minister if that's a possibility.

Hon. G. Abbott: We'd be very pleased to do that. If the member could gather up whatever information he believes is appropriate, we'd be glad to get him together with an appropriate ministry official to assist in having them reach a conclusion.

B. Simpson: I do appreciate that. Let's move on, because there's one more set of questions today, and I do want to get into something. I guess I'm just going to leap into it a bit here, with the minister's forbearance. It is back to carbon neutrality, the Pacific Carbon Trust.

[1830]

In that school district, as I'm sure the minister has been apprised, there are some very vocal trustees who believe that this is an additional burden to them. It's about $101,000 from that school.

I'll try and capture some of the minister's answer back to me, and maybe we can get to the heart of the issue. The minister indicated in a previous answer the $3 million coming back to the school system, the K-to-12 system, in total from the carbon tax. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether that's the total carbon tax that the K-to-12 system pays. Is it a total rebate to them?

As the minister posits in the argument he made, that really is a zero-sum game because they're paying the tax out of operating budgets, and all the government is doing is giving them that tax back. So it's a zero-sum game for them. It's not incremental. Is it the total amount of tax that they pay, or is it a proportion?

Hon. G. Abbott: My fascination for this area of public policy is endless, as it appears is the member's as well.

We wanted to have some clarity. First of all, on the carbon tax itself, there is about $3 million paid by school districts, and I have the breakdown here for each of the
[ Page 7186 ]
60 for carbon tax. All of that goes back to the school district. So in the case of Cariboo-Chilcotin, they paid $70,490, and it was all rebated to them. So it is a zero-sum game, as the member suggested.

This is so good to have this, because the next time it's raised in question period I'll be able to give a much more thoughtful answer than I even gave last time, which is almost unimaginable but nevertheless, I think, theoretically possible.

So on the carbon offset issue, which is the 180,000 tonnes times $25 a tonne, or $4½ million, what we are aiming to do through the public sector energy conservation agreement fund — or the PSECA fund, as we like to refer to it — is to return something very close to that $4.5 million which the school districts provide.

I wish I'd known this for question period. It would have been such a good answer and much more thoughtful than the one I gave. I could have said that, in fact, we have delivered more carbon offset dollars back to school districts for efficient mechanical upgrades, etc., than we took in.

[1835]

But I think in fairness, really, as a sustainable public policy, what we should be attempting to do is have the dollars — again, the carbon offsets — being provided but also returning those to appropriate projects at the school district level again to encourage better energy efficiency and reduction of carbon footprint and all of that good stuff.

I think that's what we have been trying to do on a public policy basis, but it's been, I'd say, a bit rough and ready to this point. They're trying to refine the model so that, in fact, there is a much closer precision between dollars coming from school districts and dollars going back in terms of energy upgrade projects.

B. Simpson: I am very tempted to say that any other answer would have been a more constructive answer than the one we got in question period, because the minister was rather energetic in his answer that day. But anyway, having said that, I guess what I want to get to…. I'm going to canvass the structure of the trust and so on with the appropriate ministers — Minister of Finance, Minister of Energy.

What I want to get to with the minister today, because it's sort of where the issue is…. My understanding — the minister can correct me if I'm wrong in his response to this — is PSECA is not being renewed. There is not additional funding for PSECA. It's actually right in the documentation on the webpage, for the minister's own edification. There's no new money for that account.

The issue with additional money that comes to school districts, of course, is that it's targeted funds for specific projects. The problem with penalizing the public sector…. And I'm going to put a couple of things on the record here because the critic wants me to book out so somebody else can ask some questions.

The problem is, of course, that the public sector in total only contributes just over 1 percent of the GHGs of British Columbia, yet it's the only sector capped and penalized by law. It's the only sector also that gets a budget to deliver a public good. In the case of the education system, it gets an operating budget to deliver classroom services, which then is clawed back to go into a fund that they cannot benefit from. It benefits the private sector.

My question to the minister is whether or not…. As he's indicated, the government is looking at this fund. If the minister is correct that the original intent was to continue to allow the school districts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as well as charging them for the per tonnage, could the minister speak to where in this fiscal year — not past years, not past programs — there will be incremental dollars for GHG reduction projects and/or energy efficiency projects?

Hon. G. Abbott: Much as I hate to admit it, the member may have exceeded not only my grasp but the grasp of the team around me in terms of our expertise in this important area of public policy. I'm not sure there's a lot that we can add to what we previously said.

[1840]

We don't know, for example, about the programs and how far into the future they may continue. I think we can say, though, that in terms of annual facility grants, that is an area where you can do important greenhouse gas reduction work. I think we are sympathetic to that. There may be a number of ways that we can achieve the goal that the member articulated. We're starting to get into an area of technicality that's a little bit beyond us here.

B. Simpson: Since the minister likes to be a little cheeky…. I mean, I could offer a briefing to staff if they so desire. But I do have to book out, so I'm going to ask one more question. It's actually positing something to the minister that he might be interested in.

It's my understanding, from looking at this very carefully…. I don't disagree with the carbon neutrality objectives. I don't disagree with British Columbia being a leader in greenhouse gas reductions. I fundamentally agree with that. The question is how. The way the minister positioned it, if the original intent was, "Let's tax this sector, if you will, the public sector, but let's engage them with some money so they can also continue to reduce their GHGs and get energy efficiencies," that would be fairer than what I understand just now, because the money has dried up for that.

As school districts will tell the minister — and I know they are — the way the structure of the funding is, the money going to the SmartTool fee, to GHG tonnage fee, is technically classroom money. That's the rub. That's what they're really struggling with. It comes from classroom
[ Page 7187 ]
money. Other money that comes in is targeted money, and the facility grants are an example. That's what they're struggling with.

I met with the CEO of the trust yesterday. I've looked very carefully at the books of the trust. I want to make the minister aware of the fact that there are funds available to renew PSECA and that the trust is actually sitting on an accruing account that it does not need in any way, shape or form for its operations.

It is currently around $28 million. It is shown to be accruing to $35 million in the 2013-2014 year. Given the minister's comments about that kind of quid pro quo fairness, I would ask the minister if in his cabinet discussions…. And I'm going to lobby the other cabinet ministers. The government is the sole shareholder of that Crown corporation.

I think there is an opportunity because it got overfunded in startup. It gets too much money from the exchange because it buys the carbon offsets cheaper than what it's purchased for, and it actually is accruing an account that's not necessary for its operations. I think it would be fair to the public sector if that money was taken and renewed for another couple of years of PSECA or some program like that. I'd like to put that in front of the minister as an opportunity to do what the minister has indicated that he thinks is the quid pro quo program.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his thoughtful advice. Now I understand why he's so far ahead of me on this. He's had a briefing yesterday from somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. That of course puts me at a considerable disadvantage, but we'll certainly think about the thoughtful advice you've provided.

M. Farnworth: I note from the time that my questions are somewhat limited, so I'm going to have to truncate the questions that I was going to ask the minister about documents that seem to show that he's planning on changing the alphabet of instruction, the curriculum of B.C. schools from Roman to Cyrillic and move on to something that probably impacts my constituency in a more immediate nature. That is the status of two schools.

One is Pitt River Middle School, which I know has been undergoing replacement. I'm just wondering about where the status of that is. The other one relates to seismic upgrade around Minnekhada Middle School, which has been one of school district 43's top priorities for seismic upgrading. Where is the ministry at with the funding for those projects?

[1845]

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's important questions. First of all, on Minnekhada Middle School. It had been identified as an appropriate seismic project, as I think the member knows. The school district has resolved that rather than do a seismic upgrade, it would be more appropriate to have a replacement. At this point it is their second capital priority on their list, and it remains under consideration for future.

On the second one which the member identified, Pitt River Community School — correct? Yes. Well, we have some excellent news at 6:47 for you. That is that it was a seismic mitigation project, but the district believes it would be more appropriate to replace. The happy news is that it is proceeding to construction.

R. Austin: I am going to end the estimates debate on the Ministry of Education by asking a series of questions. I wanted to have a discussion. There isn't time. So what I'm going to do is just outline something, put some questions into the public record, and then hopefully the minister's staff can send me some information back on this.

It's around holdback funding. It seems to be extremely complicated for us to figure out from year to year what the actual moneys are that are held back by the ministry when they are distributed back to school districts. Today a release came out that sort of hinted as though this money was, if not new, unexpected by school districts, when you would think that if it's holdback money, the districts would recognize that that money at some point is going to come back to them. So it's not new.

Here are my questions. I'll put them on the public record, and then hopefully the minister's staff can get back to me. Can the minister give an overview of how holdback funding processes work? Has the process changed at all over the last few years? What was the holdback funding originally set at for 2010-11? Can the minister state what was given out in holdback funding for 2009-10 and '08-09, and when was it released? How does the ministry determine when to release the holdback funding? Are the dates fixed?

The $8.1 million increase to school districts that came when $3 million is being clawed back for school protection premiums — is this not a cost to the ministry that's been recently downloaded onto school districts? I'm referring to the premium money that was taken back. So if $8.1 million came back today in holdback money, when you consider that $3 million was just taken, it's kind of odd to look at it that way.

[1850]

Also, does the increase of $15 per student take into account that districts are only receiving $5.1 million that can be allocated to students? The remainder goes to pay for schools protection plan premiums. Does the $15 increase mean that the current per-pupil funding amount is the previously announced amount of $8,357 plus $15, for a total of $8,372? I know I'm getting into details here, but that just explains how complicated this is.
[ Page 7188 ]

The news released today states that school districts will receive $4.721 billion in overall operating funding, an increase of $58 million. Can the government clarify whether all of this increase is targeted for full-day kindergarten, with no new funding in the operating grants to support existing students in the K-to-12 system?

Hon. G. Abbott: Those are all excellent questions, and I am remarkably confident that this incredible, remarkable team that has been assembled around me here can provide excellent answers to all of those excellent questions.

What they have already signalled to me — and this is, I think, remarkably constructive and proactive on their part — is that they are not just ready but anxious to sit down with the Education critic to provide a full briefing in relation to all of the important issues that he has raised in that submission.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

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

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $100,483,000.

Hon. T. Lake: I am honoured and privileged to stand before the members of this House today and speak for the Ministry of Environment's budget estimates.

The prosperity of our province and the health of our families depend on open, positive leadership. Building on the success of the last decade, our Premier is focusing on a families-first agenda and is committed to strengthening economic opportunities for B.C.

In turn, the work of the Ministry of Environment ensures our natural legacy for future generations while supporting positive economic outcomes. This is done so that British Columbia families can continue to live in a healthy, sustainable environment now and into the future.

The Ministry of Environment's total budget is tabled at $130.042 million. Of this, the ministry's operations budget is $121.288 million, with the environmental assessment office's budget coming in at $8.754 million.

[1450]

These funds pay for services, including parks and protected areas, the conservation officer service, environmental protection, environmental assessment, environmental sustainability and the climate action secretariat. With these funds we pay for essential programs, and all share in their successes, a few of which I'd like to share with you today.

The province is celebrating the 100th birthday of B.C. Parks in 2011, and this occasion is being marked by the Parks 100 celebration held in parks throughout the province, throughout the year. The Parks 100 celebration showcases the ministry's ongoing initiatives related to conservation, outdoor recreation, education and scientific study — all very important to the health and welfare of our families.

Climate change will continue to be a key priority for B.C. The province will continue to take advantage of its strong climate and clean energy policies to produce green jobs in a family-friendly economy and maintain its global leadership in climate solutions.

Waste management, recycling and more progress to protect species at risk will also continue to be ministry priorities.

In all areas the Ministry of Environment is committed to be open to its clients, stewardship organizations, communities, industry, the federal government and other industry partners. This openness and sharing of information will not only ensure the continued health of our ecosystems but also their ability to support a strong, diverse economy and thriving communities and families.

In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the wonderful staff. I would like to introduce the members of our staff that are here today: Deputy
[ Page 7189 ]
Minister Cairine MacDonald; Associate Deputy Minister Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland; our ADM of corporate services, Denise Bragg; our assistant deputy minister of environmental assessment, John Mazure; ADM, environmental protection division, Jim Standen; ADM for environmental sustainability and strategic policy, Mark Zacharias; ADM for parks, protection and conservation services, Lori Halls.

Also, the head of our climate action secretariat, James Mack; the executive director and chief financial officer, Anne Minnings; executive director, special projects, Scott Benton; executive director of the strategic policy branch, Anthony Danks; and director of parks, planning and management branch, Brian Bawtinheimer.

I apologize, Brian. That's the first time I've said your last name, so I probably didn't get it right. I would like to thank all of these people — as well as the people who work throughout our offices around the province, here in Victoria and, of course, all over British Columbia — for their amazing hard work and their dedication to the environment. The success that we enjoy as a ministry is down to their very hard work.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that opening statement and, in advance, for his forthright answers as we go through estimates for his ministry.

I know that when this budget was tabled by the government in February, the minister was not the Minister of Environment at that time, so I especially appreciate that he has been very hard at work to conduct estimates and to do his job as the Minister of Environment.

He has also been very approachable, through his office. It is customary to say nice things at the beginning and end of estimates, but in this minister's case, I could go on for a while more. I know that he's certainly not only a quick study but brings a tremendous background from local government and from being prominent in his region on issues that now relate to the ministry that he oversees.

I want to also thank the staff for being here this afternoon. I will try and give some indications, so that people can stretch their legs, of when we might get to certain sections this afternoon and then the morning of the next sitting day.

I just want to say, as well, and concur with the minister that his ministry is incredibly important to our province today and our province's future. If one looks at it through any lens — whether it be economic, social or, obviously, environmental — the responsibilities and the range of programs and services provided by this ministry are ones that sometimes we don't even realize the extent to which we depend on them in our daily lives.

[1455]

In terms of where this province is going in meeting climate commitments that it has made and that we hope other jurisdictions will join us in making, there's obviously a lead coordination role here. I look forward to asking the minister some questions about what the plans are in meeting not only interim targets for reducing emissions, but particularly the details about mitigating emissions into our atmosphere in this province.

There is an intense interest in the situation around parks and protected areas in British Columbia — rightly so. Not only is it reminded by the 100th anniversary that the minister referenced, but it is something that, in terms of our value as British Columbians, we have a tremendous attachment to. The flora and fauna of this province are worth billions of dollars in natural capital. That is why we must have a properly and adequately resourced Ministry of Environment to protect those assets and ensure that they're used wisely, and that they're not squandered, not contaminated and not denuded.

That is really what I want to ask the minister about. In the range of functions that report to him under this ministry, how that all comes together and whether it is in fact — and this won't be any surprise to him — adequately resourced to do some of the things that are spelled out in the service plan through the performance goals and objectives as well as some of the goals that government has previously stated, be they great goals or otherwise — whether we're meeting those tests.

I think it's of critical importance for the opposition to inquire about and for the public to understand as well. So where I would like to begin is with an update. I want to begin on the species-at-risk task force and reference an update that was provided in the opening pages of the service plan, which talks about the minister's enthusiastic reception of the report from that task force which was struck some time ago.

I think it references how valuable the recommendations of that report have been to guide potential legislative action and all kinds of actions, recovery plans and such, for endangered species. I'm particularly interested in it because the service plan makes a lot of it and how it will guide us in the current year, but of course, nobody on this side of the House — indeed, nobody other than a handful of people in government — has that report. I know it was delivered some time ago, probably 4½ months approximately — January of this year.

I know many of the people who were put on that task force, the talents they have and the enthusiasm which they brought to that task force. We have a rare legislative opportunity — rare in this province, anyway — to look at some of the recommendations and see if we can't amend legislation or indeed, as the opposition has been encouraging, introduce stand-alone species-at-risk legislation that eight of ten other provinces in Canada have, but British Columbia, along with Alberta, does not have.

I'll begin estimates there by asking the minister: where is the report? Maybe I should just ask him if we could have it now to look over and discuss here.
[ Page 7190 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the Environment critic for the tone we have had in our meetings to date and just on a regular basis, which we have and enjoy. Some would say that a civilized politician is in fact one of the species at risk in British Columbia, so hopefully we can preserve that.

The species-at-risk task force did very, very good work, and I really thank the individuals on that. British Columbia is one of the last fortresses, if you like, of biodiversity in North America. We have more biodiversity here than anywhere else, and we certainly feel a huge obligation to maintain that biodiversity and preserve the species that are here. We do recognize that's an ongoing challenge, given population growth and climate change.

The species-at-risk task force was in fact tabled with my office in January. As the member noted, I came into this job in March and have been trying to quickly get up to speed on all of the different issues. I can assure him that I have read that report. I have spoken to staff about the report.

[1500]

Government is now examining the report in detail and giving it the fulsome review that it deserves. I can say at this point that it will be considered fully by government. As soon as we are able to release that information and share that with the member opposite, we'll be doing that. I hope that will be in the relatively near future. That's about the only level of detail that I can say in terms of the release of the report at this time.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister really what the big deal is about the level of secrecy with which the task force operates. I mean, this is something that has a tremendous amount of public interest. I think people have a good idea of the tricky and controversial issues that the task force has had to grapple with in crafting its recommendations. We know which sectors were represented at the table, but that's about all we know.

The opposition isn't asking for draft legislation that would be improper for us to see before it's completed or before it's entered into the House. We're asking to see some of the deliberations and recommendations that were paid for with tax dollars, which have been sitting with government now for close to half a year — that we have access to that. I wonder if the minister can provide a reason as to why this report is being withheld from the citizens of British Columbia and all the people in every corner of the province who have an interest in this.

The reason why there's an interest here is that British Columbia is significantly behind other provinces in the country. Only 1 percent of our land mass and area of the province is covered by species-at-risk legislation — the federal SARA act. The other 99 percent is not, other than the species that we have listed, which are only in the dozens of the perhaps up to 2,000 endangered species in B.C.

There's intense interest here. I'm sure the minister can understand that. But there's not a lot of understanding or further patience for why this report has been kept under wraps and kept from people.

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly recognize the intense interest around this report. It is a critical report. Obviously, species have been living in British Columbia for hundreds of thousands of years — longer than that, of course. But the way forward has to be, I think, a very thoughtful way forward.

When we are introducing measures to protect species across the province of British Columbia, which is a very diverse province in terms of species, in terms of topography, in terms of population and in terms of the impact and pressures that are put on the land, we want to make sure we do it in a very thoughtful way. We want to make sure we give this report the due consideration that it deserves.

In my eighth week as Minister of Environment, certainly this report has been one of the priorities for me to read and discuss with staff. The House, of course, has come into session, and we are committed to tabling this report with a committee of government. Then once we have been able to do that, we will have further news for the opposition critic in terms of that report and government's response to it.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, with regard to species at risk, about one of the particular ecosystems at risk to the pressures of climate change and adapting to a change in climate in British Columbia. That is the grasslands area. He'll be very familiar with it, that ecosystem being near where he resides and part of the topography of his area.

[1505]

There has been, I think, a surprise that the Grasslands Conservation Council had its funding cut, that it was faced with closing its office, that all of the good work and the collective knowledge and memory of that organization, that institution, would disappear.

Grasslands are tremendously important, and I think even this government has come to recognize it. We're talking about species at risk. I think that even though grasslands are perhaps only 1 percent of B.C., about a third of the endangered species is supported by that ecosystem.

I want to ask the minister if it is the case that the funding that was announced recently for the conservation council has actually come at the expense of money previously granted to the Invasive Plant Council.

The reason that's important is because invasive plants are across British Columbia, where there are a number
[ Page 7191 ]
of areas where this needs to be addressed and where they're spreading rapidly and causing all kinds of problems for wildlife and for human health. The question is really is: if that is the case, is that the appropriate way to keep the Grasslands Conservation Council's activities going — by essentially taking it from another area of government, another area of his ministry, where it's greatly needed?

Hon. T. Lake: I recognize the importance of the Grasslands Conservation Council and in fact am very much a strong advocate of their work. They've had some challenges. I have met with the Grasslands Conservation Council on a number of occasions, both before and after becoming Minister of Environment.

Certainly, the member is absolutely correct. The grasslands are a small part of the landscape in British Columbia and yet house about a third of our species at risk, so they are critical.

Lac du Bois park in my area is a great example of grasslands that are being preserved by both government and non-governmental organizations.

The member is referring to, I believe, $3 million that was given to the Invasive Plant Council by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. That didn't come from our ministry, so I can't speak to that specifically.

What I can say is that I have asked staff to look at opportunities where our ministry could look to the Grasslands Conservation Council to do work that is necessary to meet our objectives. We are, in fact, in communication with them and looking for those opportunities that would assist the Grasslands Conservation Council in terms of maintaining their infrastructure and continued work.

I also have had preliminary discussions with Mr. Zirnhelt, the chair of the Grasslands Conservation Council, and informal talks with Dr. Lauch Fraser at Thompson Rivers University, who specializes in grasslands conservation, about a grasslands institute at Thompson Rivers University.

I think that would be the vehicle to keep the Grasslands Conservation Council in a sort of sustainable model which actually would leverage it, then, into a research, conservation framework that is partnering with one of our great universities, Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.

We are looking for opportunities, and we'll continue to do so throughout the year.

R. Fleming: Well, I'm pleased that the minister is communicating with the council on a sustainable funding model. They've been living with uncertainty for a number of years, particularly since this government very abruptly decided to cancel the gaming funds for community organizations of all types. In particular, they have now removed from the granting category organizations that do environmental education.

[1510]

I can't imagine what the cabinet discussion was like around that decision. It seems rather arbitrary and unfair that with all kinds of public goods that are supposed to come from, perhaps, the ill gains of having a regulated, government-run gaming industry, environmental education is now considered unworthy of what it had previously enjoyed for many years.

I know that all kinds of organizations who previously did incredibly valuable work are no longer able to do that because that granting source has been stripped away from them. So it's important for what groups we can, who need to continue, like the Grasslands Council, to get a sustainable funding model. It's going to take extra work from government, I think, if they're not willing to revisit the gaming and funding decisions.

I would ask the minister if he could update the committee here today on the decision around gaming funding. Has the door closed there, or can we look forward…? I know that government has added some funding back — I think $15 million of the many more tens of millions that were cut overall to the granting fund. When will there be a time over the life of this service plan, for example, where community-based environmental groups can expect to be eligible to apply for grants?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I guess my father would take a little umbrage at the member's characterization of ill-gotten gains. I don't go to casinos, but my dad and his wife actually really enjoy going to casinos, and I'm glad they're going into a regulated facility for their enjoyment. They're quite happy no one forces them to go there. That is their form of entertainment, their form of holiday.

These so-called ill-gotten gains actually supply millions and millions of dollars for worthy groups around the province of British Columbia. It was, I think, very welcome news when our Premier restored $15 million in grants. I was happy to present that news to our food bank, which received an additional $25,000 this year. I'm sure the member would agree that the clients of the food bank and food banks all over British Columbia benefit greatly from that ability to access those gaming grants, those so-called ill-gotten gains.

But choices have to be made, and choices can be difficult sometimes. The choice was made to support community groups like food banks, to support children's sports activities.

As I mentioned earlier, sustainability is key to groups like the Grasslands Conservation Council, and that's why I would like to discuss and develop with them an opportunity to partner with one of our leading post-secondary institutions to make sure that they do have a funding model — not just a funding model to keep them sustainable in their current existence but to elevate
[ Page 7192 ]
them to a place where they can actually do research and share that information with other jurisdictions around the world that would benefit from that.

R. Fleming: I didn't think I would get into a discussion about gaming in quite much this detail, but I think I should respond to how my comments were characterized. The point I was trying to make is that for a long time in British Columbia there has been a social contract around government-run gaming and administered gaming and a recognition that there is a certain percentage of the population that do have problem gaming addictions.

There are certain negative social consequences with gaming. The vast majority of British Columbians do not have that, but there is a percentage that will always be in the population that does.

[1515]

That is why we have structured government-run gaming facilities to community and voluntary organizations. Environmental education organizations were a part of that social contract that was ripped up by this government shortly after the 2009 election. They are no longer part of it.

I wanted to know if the minister himself thinks it's appropriate that the social value we derive from environmental education…. I'm talking about things like the green boating education programs that won't be around this summer on our waters, because the grants no longer apply to them, that helped keep motor fuel and pollutants out of the ocean and freshwater sources. Those things aren't going to be done. The minister should know that without the grants that sustain some of those education programs, they disappear.

I want to ask him why he agreed that his ministry should take the hit and other ministries should receive some of the partial restoration of funding that was taken from charitable organizations.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the minister responsible for Public Safety and Solicitor General is the minister who manages the gaming grants, so probably many of those questions should be directed to that minister. But I take the member's point that he feels that environmental groups should be supported by this government.

I was very happy to hear in the House today one of the members from the opposition stand up and talk about a new school being opened in his riding, one that featured an environmental school. I really commend them for that, because obviously we both share the view, and many British Columbians do, that we need to protect the environment, and that starts with our kids. There's no question about that.

I'm an avid supporter of the McQueen Lake environmental school in the school district of the Kamloops region. I go to their fundraiser every year and am very proud of that facility that my kids had been to each and every year when they were in elementary school.

There are many ways of supporting environmental education. I recognize that. I share that belief with the member opposite, but in terms of policy around gaming grants, I would suggest that the member canvass that with the minister responsible for Public Safety and Solicitor General.

R. Fleming: I again wanted, maybe just to put on the record, to go back to this species-at-risk task force report and ask the minister directly when the public might be able to reasonably expect they'll enjoy a report that they paid for.

Hon. T. Lake: Very soon.

R. Fleming: Could he calendarize very soon — just for my benefit, if not for others?

Hon. T. Lake: I would hope that that report will be available before the end of June.

R. Fleming: So it's at least safe to conclude that there'll be no legislative action in this session that will result from the work of the task force. I'll be around at the end of June, so I will eagerly anticipate that.

I want to move into a section, maybe ask some questions of the minister around B.C. Parks and funding, and then some specific parks work that is being done by his ministry and some proposals that the province, as a partner, is examining in different parts of B.C.

Suffice it to say that it wasn't just the opposition that was disappointed in the budget for B.C. Parks this year, its centenary year. After years and years of cuts — almost $10 million of cumulative cuts since 2001 when this government came into power and the parks budget was approximately $40½ million to now below $30 million — it was disappointing to many, many groups, not just because we can throw these dollar terms around as to what that represents, and that is a 26 percent cut over the decade that this government has been in power, but because of what it really means in our park system.

It means fewer dollars per hectare. It means fewer staff working there. It means that since 2002 or 2003 we haven't had interpretation services in our parks. We haven't had a number of things that enhance the visitor experience in B.C. parks. Really, when you look at some of the closures and seasons that have been shortened and some of the infrastructure that's in poor repair in our park system, it means that that isn't going to get addressed, at least to the extent that it should, this year.

[1520]

This is, of course, a three-year budget that was tabled, and the horizon for B.C. Parks doesn't get any better. I'll ask the minister some questions in a moment specific-
[ Page 7193 ]
ally about the report. But added to the centenary, the other disappointing background fact is that we had the Auditor General of British Columbia examine how well parks are being managed and planned, not long ago, in 2010, the year before this.

It actually posed the question of looking back at a hundred years in the park system that we've comprised in our province, to ask some of the questions looking ahead a hundred years, especially in this age of climate change, and about some of the steps that we need to have. Very disturbing findings there about how inadequate or nonexistent in many cases the management plans are for parks and protected areas in B.C.

I want to ask the minister if he thinks that B.C. Parks, the 14 percent of our land base that is in the B.C. park system today, at something like $2.23 per hectare of funding — a less-than-$30-million budget to manage all of that land, all those millions of hectares in B.C. — is adequate and sustainable.

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, I want to recognize that this is the 100th anniversary of B.C. Parks. We started that celebration by announcing the free parking in our facilities for day use. It's a commitment of the Premier that we have followed through on, and that was very well-received. I know that British Columbians are looking forward, as we enter the first sort of unofficial weekend of summer, to going to B.C. parks and enjoying the facilities that we have throughout the province.

I have great memories of when I was younger with my young family. For young families, of course, B.C. parks represent an enormous economic opportunity in terms of having a holiday when economic pressures are great for young families. So I understand the importance of B.C. parks for all of British Columbians but particularly for young families. Relieving them of having to pay for parking for day use of our facilities, I think, was very well-received.

It's true that we have almost 14 percent of our entire area of the province in parks and protected areas, which greatly exceeds the United Nations' recommendation. So we're far ahead of many other jurisdictions. Every time that we add space to parks and protected areas…. I think I have to recognize that the former government of the '90s was very instrumental in expanding the parks and protected areas, and we've continued that, with over 1.9 million hectares added.

Of course, as you add more and more, it's impossible to keep up this funding on a per-hectare basis, because you'd be spending about the same amount you are in health care, which, of course, is just not sustainable for any other ministry.

The fact is that only 2 percent of the parks really have a human footprint, which speaks to other concerns that the member has voiced around species at risk. Our parks and protected areas play a huge role in maintaining an area to preserve those species that are at risk from development pressures and climate change.

Is it a challenge to fund everything that we would like to fund in government? Absolutely. When we are giving a 6 percent increase every year to health care to manage the pressures that the public quite rightly puts on us to provide for their health, it means that government has to do better with the dollars that are remaining. I know, with the group that we have in our ministry, that we will continue to make sure that every dollar is spent in the very best way possible to maintain and, in fact, improve our park system on our 100th anniversary.

R. Fleming: Well, one thing that I will concede at the outset is that parks funding is not a distinctly new issue. I know that governments do struggle to find money for it. They pay a lot of attention and give wonderful platitudes about how valuable it is economically, which it is.

[1525]

There are many small businesses and suppliers and particularly regions that are quite economically depressed right now that would be very hesitant to lose more parks funding and, hence, risk not attracting as many visitors to their tourism economy. That certainly is a risk and a concern.

Governments have studied how funding can be made stable and secure, but this government has done nothing except, for ten years, reduce that funding. In fact, I think the previous minister, when I had a chance to question him, never quite accepted this, but parks in British Columbia in five out of the last eight years have received less funding than the public affairs bureau of government. Imagine that: 14 percent of the land base and all of those millions of hectares getting less than the communications shop of the government, but that is in fact the case.

In the late 1990s parks funding was seen as inadequate by many, particularly by the opposition. Government convened, to its credit, the Parks Legacy Panel. They did bring in recommendations and tabled findings with government that parks funding was inadequate. And do you know what? Government did something about it. They added some money back.

I want to ask the minister if he agrees with a colleague of his who, during that time, questioned why government was adding tremendous amounts of land to protected area status and to parks to reach the 12 percent UN target and asked why the planning budget and the budget for parks hadn't sufficiently increased to keep up on a per-hectare basis. That was Christy Clark who felt that this was a very poor quandary to put government into, to be adding more land and not keeping pace with funding per hectare for that park system.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that, because that's exactly what is happening in British Columbia now. We're adding more land. There were
[ Page 7194 ]
seven parks tabled in legislation last year here, which is great. But this is a budget, unfortunately, that cuts another 600 grand from an already cash-starved parks budget.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that the Parks Legacy Panel was formed around 1995, which was just after the last time the Canucks were in the Stanley Cup. It was a very long time ago, although I do remember it extremely well and hope that I will have not quite similar memories this year. I hope it changes a little bit in the seventh game of the final.

I can say that the comparison or, I guess, the standard of managing land per hectare, on a per-hectare basis, I think, is a little specious in that this is not a farm we're talking about where land is productive and every piece of land is cultivated or has even a human impact.

[1530]

In fact, much of the value of having parks and protected areas is, as I mentioned, to protect it from human impact, to preserve the flora and fauna. So managing on a per-hectare basis I don't think is a management tool that we would recommend.

As I mentioned, only 2 percent of the area that is in parks and protected areas actually has a human footprint, so we want to make sure that that area is well managed, that we do, in fact, have lots of areas that are free from human impact for the conservation values that we would like to see.

R. Fleming: Well, I would submit to the minister that the way to manage parks is not by cutting the budget year after year for a decade and somehow suggesting that since most protected areas are best served as remote and not frequented by persons, that's an excuse for the budget.

In fact, he knows that the Auditor General gave this government an absolute failing grade. He said that the province of British Columbia is failing to protect the ecological integrity of B.C.'s parks. These are very wild spaces that are confronted by invasive species, climate change issues, species at risk. These are areas that in some cases are without management plans or ones that are completely and hopelessly outdated. I believe that 75 percent was the finding in this case.

It will take money to achieve goals the government has set for itself to have the best parks system in the world. I think that was one of the great goals just a few short years ago, but the attitude that somehow neglect is benign, of our B.C. Parks system, is completely unsustainable.

I would ask the minister again: does he agree with the parks cuts in his budget, and does he agree that these cuts should continue throughout the duration of the service plan that he's tabled here?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I want to read into the record that the B.C. Progress Board's benchmark reports for both 2009 and 2010 found that B.C. ranked first in Canada on environmental quality and achieved a first-place rank on protected areas. As I mentioned, we have almost 14 percent of its land base dedicated to protected areas, which is the highest of all provincial jurisdictions and the third-largest protected area in all of North America.

The member said that cuts would continue in the service plan, and we are actually on the last of reductions in terms of our three-year service plan. Going out from here, the budget is not being reduced. I think the member is pointing out that in government, governments around the world, health care is becoming a greater and greater part of the fiscal demands on government. As our population ages, this will only get worse.

We are managing those pressures, as I'm sure any government would, to make sure that our population is looked after in terms of health care, in terms of education.

Will we discuss and debate other ministries' needs? Absolutely. We all do that. We all advocate for our ministries. We recognize how critical it is to maintain parks and protected areas.

[1535]

As I mentioned, we have a dedicated group of employees as well as park facilities operators. Over 700 employees of park facilities operators around the province are committed to making sure that every dollar spent is well spent. As in any family, when you undergo budget pressures, you make the most with what you have. We are confident that with the quality of people we have working in our parks system, we are able to do that.

R. Fleming: "Let me say this: 'Unless there is a financial commitment to build these parks and manage these parks and to enforce the rules on these parks, it doesn't mean very much.'" That's Christy Clark saying that. That's the Premier of the province now who espouses that view.

I know that the minister supported somebody different who was running for Premier just a couple months ago, who advanced the idea, which I think was a reasonable one, that in 2011, the year of our 100th anniversary of parks, parks funding be raised, which he admitted was chronically underfunded and cut to the bone, by 10 percent, by $3 million. A $3 million lift was a completely justified and necessary step to take, and the government should revise the estimates and, in this fiscal year, give a funding lift, finally, to B.C. Parks.

I have to ask the minister: did he agree with the Premier when she said those words — that unless there's a financial commitment to parks, they can't be managed properly? Does he agree with the member for Shuswap, who suggested that in this fiscal year there should be at
[ Page 7195 ]
least $3 million added back to the $10 million that has been cut over this government's decade in office, or does he think differently?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, comments made a decade or so ago need to be put into context. In 2008 the world suffered an economic recession, which was, I think, noticed by members of the opposition as well.

Governments around the world found themselves in very fiscally challenging times. I think if we went around the world, we could name countries and jurisdictions that are suffering from economic pressures. I think the member has probably heard about Greece and Ireland, Spain and Portugal. In the U.K. they are dealing with tremendous budgetary pressures — increasing tuition for post-secondary students, reducing the social safety net for many of its citizens — as they try to balance the books.

So I think we have to put into context any discussion we have around funding and what we would like to do if we had a bottomless treasure trove of money. But I reiterate that health care spending is consuming more and more of the fiscal pie in every jurisdiction in the western world. As that happens, and until economic conditions rebound, a fiscally responsible government manages within a framework that doesn't put its future at risk.

We understand that the environment and our parks and protected areas are critical for our children, but what's also critical for our children is to be fiscally responsible so that we don't leave them with a hefty bill for the decisions we make today. You know, the pressures are there. We recognize the pressures are there. The member opposite would advocate for more money in parks — I'm sure his colleagues would advocate for more money in social development, in ministry after ministry after ministry — yet advocates a policy that would see a $3 billion gap in the fiscal plans of the government of British Columbia.

These are great discussions and great debates to have, and I appreciate the member opposite, because he makes sure that we are paying attention to what we're doing and makes sure that we do squeeze every value, every little penny out of every dollar we spend in our parks and protected areas.

[1540]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister what the advertising budget is for his ministry this year, and specifically for B.C. Parks.

Hon. T. Lake: We do have, in STOB 67, $1 million that is allocated for advertising at this time. It sits within the climate action secretariat, but it is meant for the ministry in terms of advertising. The member may be referring to current advertising that's going on at the moment, which has the logo of B.C. Parks on it and, in fact, has some footage of B.C. parks in it. That is an initiative of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

But again, this is an example of squeezing every bit of value out of every dollar spent, as another ministry embarking on a British Columbia–themed campaign is recognizing the importance of B.C. parks and collaborating to make sure the dollars they spend on advertising actually also contribute to promoting a treasure in terms of the parks system in British Columbia.

R. Fleming: Could the minister tell me how much one rotation of an advertisement for B.C. Parks costs during the Stanley Cup playoffs?

Hon. T. Lake: Priceless. No, I don't want to say that. I don't know. I can't answer that question because, as I mentioned, those advertisements are done on behalf of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. So that would be best directed to that minister.

R. Fleming: Well, I appreciate it's tough times and that there's restraint all over government. So in light of that, a $1 million advertising budget, to me, seems peculiar, given that B.C. Parks again is experiencing a significant cut in its budget at a time when we know that it is creating a lot of anxiety and compromising the ability of some staff and park contractors, they feel, to do their job.

We know they feel that way, because there's recently been a raft of conversations by e-mail that were secured through freedom-of-information requests. We are talking about findings that some conservation officers, some parks staff cannot pay for their vehicles, have returned vehicles to the ministry. So I wanted to ask the minister whether at this point in time he's leading by example or whether he has a leased vehicle, as a minister.

Hon. T. Lake: No, I do not.

R. Fleming: Glad to hear that. Does the minister know how many vehicles have been returned in his ministry or are not in use due to funding restrictions in the last two fiscal years?

Hon. T. Lake: We don't have that information readily available. We'll take that on notice and provide it at a later time, if that's okay with the member.

R. Fleming: Could the minister provide full-time-equivalent numbers for the park ranger service at this point in time? If he's going to give a larger number, if he could break that down to…. I know there are people being hired up on a part-time, seasonal basis right now, and if he could make a distinction between those that work for the service full-time, year-round and those who work on a part-time basis.

[1545]
[ Page 7196 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We have ten full-time rangers, plus 87 seasonal rangers that start work in early spring and end in late fall, depending on where they are in the province, as obviously, the camping season changes depending on the climate and topography of the area. That doesn't include the area supervisors or parks and protected area section heads, who also hold park officer status and can, at times of need, work in the parks and do all of the duties that a park ranger would.

R. Fleming: Can the minister provide numbers that are within his ministry about what the reduction in patrol has been in terms of the number of parks that have experienced either partial or complete reductions of ranger patrol as a result of the reduction in the staff complement?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring to the number of patrols. It's certainly on the record that the number of park rangers has been reduced over the last several years. As we mentioned, we're in the last year of a budget reduction cycle in response to unprecedented economic pressures brought on by the recession of 2008. Historically, numbers range anywhere from 194 to 109, 131, 98. Now we're at 97. Certainly in our three-year plan we do not expect any more reductions in that number.

R. Fleming: In the FOI'd documents, where staff are communicating with one another about all kinds of rather unfortunate and some even absurd decisions, budget rationing, that go on within his ministry, what's really concerning is that on a regular basis there are a number of comments pertaining to no patrol during what, I expect, are busy camping weekends. Confirmations from area supervisors that in fact there are no….

In this one instance, it simply says, "Unfortunately, be advised that with the exception of me as below, we will have no park rangers in the Sea to Sky corridor over that long weekend." This is rangers patrolling parks.

[1550]

Does the minister think that that kind of activity, which appears from the documents to be becoming disturbingly routine, is safe for British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: I do know that our park rangers are well trained. They're also assisted by the employees of park facilities operators all around the province. I do know that since 2001 we've doubled the number of doctors and nurses in this province, which I think probably goes more to the safety of the people of British Columbia than anything else.

As I mentioned, we are at the end of a three-year reduction in our budget, which is in response to a reduction in government revenues due to the unprecedented economic downturn of 2008. British Columbians understand that. We have to make decisions that at times are very challenging.

But we will, I suspect, always advocate for doctors and nurses to ensure the safety of British Columbians, and we will continue to make sure that we extract every piece of value from the dollars in our budget to make sure our parks are safe and our protected areas continue to expand and that we do, as British Columbians would expect to, have a parks system that is envied by people around North America.

R. Fleming: I think the minister should take more credit from his government for other tough decisions they've made since the unprecedented economic downturn of 2008. They've found $150 million in tax cuts for banks, banks that were profitable in British Columbia — can you imagine that? — probably the least deserving people. Not the mortgage holders in British Columbia but banks — $150 million. That's fivefold the budget annually for the parks system that we're discussing here this afternoon.

They found $600 million after the Olympic Games and all the facility costs, the billions of dollars that were spent to host those games, for a retractable roof on a stadium — $600 million. And it apparently doesn't work in the rain.

So take credit for the full spectrum and full picture for some of the tough belt-tightening decisions that cabinet has made on behalf of some of the least deserving economic categories and the resulting decision that the parks system is where it is.

I asked him earlier if he agreed with the candidate he supported who was running for Premier a couple of months ago when he said that maybe a modest $3 million for B.C. Parks would be reasonable, given the circumstances. What I'm talking about this afternoon are the front-line workers in the minister's ministry who are talking about how dire the situation is in on a daily operational basis.

There's an excerpt in one of these e-mail conversations that refers to a rescue boat that is not in service because it can't be staffed properly on busy long weekends in well-used park facilities, the very same rescue boat that pulled somebody out, rescued somebody, the previous season, who was exposed and suffering from hypothermia. These are the kinds of things happening on an operational basis.

So again, I would ask the minister, on the funding decision here — this is the budget that we're debating this afternoon — whether he stands behind the funding cuts for B.C. Parks in the centenary year.

Hon. T. Lake: The comments the member refers to in terms of the situation in Garibaldi, for instance, came from the 2008-2009 season. Garibaldi will receive an additional seasonal park ranger this summer, bringing them up to four park rangers assigned to Garibaldi Provincial Park.

[1555]
[ Page 7197 ]

When we recognize that there is a weakness in the system, we address it. I think, obviously, safety is an important consideration. As these situations come up, we will deal with them and work within our budget to make sure that we are, as I mentioned before, extracting value for every dollar and making sure that we protect the public in our parks at the same time.

R. Fleming: I think a few weeks ago — I'm trying to remember the exact date — when the minister stood next to the Premier and announced the removal of parking meters, it's fair to say that people expected a more significant announcement and a number of elements of deficiencies and neglect in parks to be addressed more comprehensively than just the optic of parking meters being pulled out — the very same parking meters that she had installed and supported the decision to put into parks when she was Deputy Premier and a member of Treasury Board years prior and was warned would be a disaster that would deter visitors. Sure enough it was.

Anyway, I'm all for messes being cleaned up. But one of the things that I think people were surprised was not committed to by this minister or the Premier at that announcement was fulfilling something that Premier Gordon Campbell had committed to, and indeed the throne speech of the government had committed to, which was to restore interpretative service programming in British Columbia.

We're the only province — indeed, the only jurisdiction in North America other than the state of Mississippi, I believe — that does not have funding for interpretation in our parks in service contracts with our service contractors and providers in B.C. It was stripped out in 2003.

We have closed visitor information centres in parks around British Columbia. We have a number of interpretation centres in parks, as close to here as Goldstream, that are due to close because government raised the expectation that they might restore the funding there and have failed to come through, and they can't simply do that anymore. They don't have the budget to do it, to operate it, and they're not going to continue.

Maybe the minister could say on the record, because it's still an outstanding promise and commitment of this government to restore interpretation services in the parks: is he going to fulfil that promise of his government?

Hon. T. Lake: The member referred to 2003, I believe. Starting in 2006 an interpretative program did commence. It was administered by B.C. Nature and the B.C. Conservation Corps in partnership with B.C. Parks, park facility operators and Service Canada. In 2008 that program operated in 24 parks at a cost of about $500,000.

As I mentioned, in 2008 the world changed, and fiscal challenges hit every jurisdiction.

I believe that interpretative programs are an important part of our parks program. While we are unable to restore the program at this particular time, given the fiscal challenge, we will continue to look at the long-term plan. I will certainly commit to looking at interpretative programs and at the ability, within the existing fiscal structure that we have, to look at interpretation programs.

I understand how important they are to conservation groups, to friends of parks that we have throughout the province. It's important to children of B.C. when they visit a park that they find out about the reason for the parks and the flora and the fauna in the parks. Interpretative programs, I think, are a valuable tool. That's why I commit to looking at this specific program, and I very much hope that we'll be able to have some future program in place in the parks throughout British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I want to go back to the example of Goldstream.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

I know the minister isn't from this region, but he will know many people who are and has maybe heard directly or participated in the Goldstream Park salmon run, when spawning occurs, and how many tens of thousands of Victorians of all ages…. I particularly want to talk about the interpretation services and how valuable it is for children and kids in the school system.

[1600]

This is probably one of the most eye-opening experiences that they will have with nature. It doesn't happen without interpretation services being offered, and that has been cut since 2002. Many of these groups have become, essentially, voluntary and self-funded organizations that are paying for it out of their own pocket to accommodate school groups and accommodate demand for visitor experiences in our parks so that they can better appreciate them.

But there comes a breaking point, and it's been suggested to me by the operator that that breaking point has been reached. Spirits were lifted a couple of years ago by this government saying that they could expect a change in direction, an acknowledgment that what they did in 2002 was wrong, but that has not to pass.

The Goldstream example, I think, is even better now. As the minister knows, we've had a very significant fuel spill into Goldstream River, and the spawning grounds are now threatened. There's an on-site extensive — perhaps up to a year or more — contamination and remediation operation going on. That is a tragedy, and it may have long-term consequences in the estuary and for the fish run there. We can't do anything about that except to make sure that the cleanup is to the highest
[ Page 7198 ]
standard possible and that there are no shortcuts and such.

Actually, it could be a learning experience. Those same school groups could come and see what is tragic about it but also what humans can do, what some of the First Nation fishery management teams hope to do, and how the hatchery, which is still operational there, might bring that area back.

But you know what? Goldstream has written to this government. The area supervisors know full well that the interpretation services that are offered there now are at their wits' end. They cannot cope and manage with it anymore.

These are the kinds of things that are being lost in our parks systems. This isn't a lot of money, again, that we're talking about for our park system. That would have been something substantive that the government could have followed through on and lived up to a promise that they made not very long ago to restore interpretation services in 2011 on the 100th anniversary of B.C. Parks.

I have to ask him again: why couldn't he get the commitment of cabinet to do that?

The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Environment.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, Mr. Chair — good to have you in the chair.

The member was referring to Goldstream Provincial Park. Certainly, what happened is a tragedy in terms of the habitat there. We are very optimistic that with the mitigation response, in fact the river will recover fully. There are certainly positive signs.

I've visited the area. I met with Peter McCully, who is the Goldstream Volunteer Salmonid Enhancement Association volunteer coordinator and a technical adviser as well. We were very happy to see that there were, in fact, some fish in the river that were unaffected. We know that many, of course, suffered acute damage due to the spill of 42,000 litres of gasoline into the river.

The member makes a point that this is a learning experience for children, and I'm sure it is. In fact, I'm sure that many of those students in the area, as they prepare for a visit to Goldstream, will have studied the salmon life cycle in their classes. The teachers — knowing the quality of teaching we have in this province — would have pointed out the effect of having contamination of the habitat and the effect it would have on those salmon.

[1605]

In my community around the Kamloops and Shuswap area, we of course have the famous Adams River sockeye run. Every year students from schools around our area go to watch the millions upon millions over — I forget the number — 15 million, I think, just this past year that made their way up the Fraser and the Thompson to get to the head of the Adams River for spawning. I know those children are taught in school about the salmon life cycle.

So while we do value the interpretation programs and know that is an enhancement to the learning of the school children as they study the environment, we know they are also well supported in the schools by the wonderful teachers that teach science and are well aware of the importance of keeping our salmon habitats healthy.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister…. We've been talking about money, and we've been talking about the values of parks. So far we haven't found any new money for parks this afternoon, but I'm hoping that'll change shortly.

In these documents that I'm sure he has read now from the people who work for all of us in our park system, they're talking about there being no discretionary contingency dollars for fixing broken outhouses, even for toilet paper and basic supplies. They're talking about rotten planks on footbridges. You know, a piece of lumber can't be paid out of a contingency budget.

I mean, these are things I'm not making up. These are FOI documents from people who work in our park system. It's at a pretty critical point. I'm sure that taken together, all of these incidentals and deferred projects that shouldn't be deferred anymore…. They simply roped off trails and closed areas. I'm sure all of that could be done with a small amount of funding.

I'm wondering if he would commit to listen to his staff. They're talking to each other, very clearly, and decisions are being made that are very poor decisions, very unfortunate decisions that are not in the interest of any of us.

Will he sit down internally and just figure out maybe what the price tag is of doing maintenance and stocking supplies that are essential and basic to enjoying the B.C. park experience — just find out what the total of that is and do his level best to get that probably small amount of money back into the park system? I can't imagine that the mood of staff who work for parks — and I've heard it from some of the service providers that are contracted with government — is anything short of demoralized at this point in time. So I would ask the minister if he would commit to that this afternoon.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm glad that the member opposite gave me the opportunity to talk about the capital expenditures in B.C. parks. I'd like to report on the record that from 1990 to 2001 the total spent on capital in the B.C. park system was $65.532 million, and from 2001 to 2012 the total will be $114.982 million, which is about an 85 percent increase as I do the quick math in my head.

I want to point out that this year we have a $10.9 million capital budget. It includes things like a new toilet-shower building or refurbishment of the toilet-shower building at Cultus Lake for $355,000; a new water
[ Page 7199 ]
system in Manning Park for $900,000; a new water and micropower system for a lodge in Mount Assiniboine for $700,000; a new boat launch and parking area at Kekuli Bay for $500,000; new camping facilities at Kikomun Creek for $800,000; and a number of other ones — as I mentioned, $10.9 million in terms of our capital.

R. Fleming: Okay. Well, I don't think toilet paper and rotting planks are capital, but I'll have to take that as an answer and ask the minister specifically about something on the planning side of his ministry that staff have been involved with for a number of years, at least since 2006 but probably before — with Parks Canada, anyway, since 2006.

[1610]

That is the proposed national park in the South Okanagan–Lower Similkameen. This has been undertaken and, I'm told, completed in terms of the consultation and the feasibility study that Parks Canada was tasked with completing and that, by memorandum of understanding, British Columbia participated in.

I'm just wondering…. Well, maybe if the minister could just offer some comments to start with. What's the holdup?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, we recognize that the South Okanagan is a critical piece of grasslands connecting the corridor between the United States and more northern grasslands in British Columbia and has unique properties that are well recognized.

The province and the federal government have done an extensive amount of work on the idea of creating a park in that area, but of course, we want to do it in a thoughtful way with full consultation.

I recently received a letter from the Okanagan Nation Alliance, and we'll be meeting with that group shortly to discuss this. There is, I think, a need for further consultation as we take any next steps and, of course, recognize that the federal government, after a new government is installed, will be re-engaging on various issues. We look forward to discussions with them on this.

R. Fleming: So is it the position of the provincial government that it is in favour of national park status and designation in the South Okanagan for this area which, as the minister rightly pointed out, has a lot of distinct nature values to it? I think it would be the first national park to include a desert area as well as the grasslands that he mentioned.

I understand that there have been some First Nations issues, as well as other stakeholder issues, that Parks Canada believes are resolved — as far as the ranching community and other groups and hunters too — in terms of unique exemptions and permissions that have been put on the table.

But all of that said, British Columbia has been at the table for a long time here. This park feasibility study is done. He has articulated very well, I think, what value this area would have for all of British Columbia, and I want to know what the position of the government is.

Hon. T. Lake: I do want to recognize that a lot of work has gone into this. The member opposite, I think, pointed out that some innovative and creative ways of addressing some of the concerns in the local area have been discussed. It would be unique in terms of a national park — some of the considerations that have been discussed — but there is certainly more consultation that needs to take place with First Nations.

Today Peter Kent was reaffirmed as the Environment Minister for the federal government. I look forward to discussing with him areas of mutual interest in terms of the environment, and this certainly will be one of those that we discuss.

[1615]

At this time I would say that we look forward to more discussions on this idea and this project. I would say at this point that we are continuing to learn more and to consult not only with the people in the area but also with our counterparts in Ottawa.

R. Fleming: I think that as part of the compromises over the number of years in planning this park…. One of them has been around the dimensions or the boundaries of it. Nevertheless, a significant part of this is Crown land that B.C. owns. It would be up to British Columbia, I believe, to purchase land adjacent to what the Crown owns and begin that process of assembling the land that would be included in the national park and providing the compensation as well as the administration for that. We would be reimbursed, but British Columbia would take the lead in that regard.

That's a commitment and a will that needs to be shown by the province of B.C., so I would again ask the minister if those kinds of discussions and decision points have been reached and where he stands on that.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm advised that in fact, it's Parks Canada that would be responsible for acquiring land in the area. I just reiterate to the member that we are continuing our work on this file. As I mentioned, this is week 8 for me as Minister of Environment. Federally, a new Environment Minister or a renewed Environment Minister has occurred today, so I look forward to continued discussions on this file.

R. Fleming: I think all of us hope that it turns out well, not just because of all the work that's been put in but because of the value it would represent for future generations, obviously, and for a piece of the province that's under tremendous stress.

All of the difficult work that has been done in that area…. In the South Okanagan, which needs parks for
[ Page 7200 ]
that region — it certainly has less than other regions of B.C. I hope it doesn't deter pursuing working with the federal government and pursuing another national park, potentially.

I wanted to ask the minister how he feels about the Flathead Valley in British Columbia. This has been under tremendous study by UNESCO. It has come to the attention of them. They issued a report. It has even reached discussion levels between the Prime Minister and the White House. Of course, Montana has long had an interest, being downstream from the area on the U.S. side of the border, and Alberta has park holdings that are significant on its side.

We have a very small formal park area that's provincial, but now we have a more significant area where there's now a moratorium on things like coal bed methane and energy and mining, which is great. But I think what UNESCO has concluded is that it is highly desirable to have a higher level of protection. Alberta, Montana and, I believe, the federal government are all supportive and would be favourable to British Columbia working with Parks Canada on a feasibility study.

This isn't a commitment to a park designation per se, but it would be a way to get federal examination in a ministry like yours, which is challenged to find money to do parks planning properly. We've canvassed that widely today. It would be a way to find federal money to study and make recommendations on the feasibility of a national park in an area that is now referred to by the world and by UNESCO as the Crown of the Continent ecosystem — right here in British Columbia.

So I would ask the minister: is that something that he favours?

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: The Flathead Valley. Although I have not at this point had the opportunity to visit, in my role as Environment Minister, I think we both — and many British Columbians and people around the world — appreciate the conservation values that that area has in terms of many different species in the province of British Columbia — a thriving grizzly bear population, a thriving ungulate population.

The member recognizes the steps that we have taken to preserve the conservation values of that area with the removal of oil and gas, mining activities in that area. We've signed a further agreement, the transboundary Flathead agreement, on the protection with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. We thank them for their generous support of this area, which is important in terms of maintaining conservation values in British Columbia.

We have taken great steps. Certainly, not everyone throughout the economy is happy with those steps, but we feel that this area is important to protect. We've taken, I would think, very, very positive steps to do just that.

R. Fleming: Nevertheless, it remains that B.C.'s portion — between Alberta, Montana and ours — is the smallest and the least protected, even after the steps that have been taken through the memorandum that the minister referenced with the governor. It is the least protected and the smallest part of this transnational ecosystem with the United States. UNESCO has studied it and made very strong recommendations and comments about its value to North America overall and, in fact, to the world.

So the question is really simple. Does the minister favour taking the step of agreeing to create an MOU similar to the one that we were just discussing in the South Okanagan area just to do a parks feasibility study with Parks Canada?

Hon. T. Lake: At this point in time Parks Canada has not invited that discussion.

I mentioned that this area has generous protection in terms of its conservation values. There is sustainable forestry ongoing in the area. I think all of us would recognize that the forest practices in British Columbia are models for the world. It is, I think the member would agree, a sustainable industry that supports British Columbia's goals of providing education, health care services and many of the other services that British Columbians have come to rely upon.

At this point in time we are extremely grateful for the Nature Conservancy and its contribution, with the cooperation of our friends in Montana. We will be continuing to look for ways of making sure that all of the areas in British Columbia where species are at risk are managed. We canvassed that earlier, and we are committed to ensuring that we have a management plan throughout British Columbia that preserves the conservation values that the member recognizes.

British Columbia is unique in North America. We are the last bastion of biodiversity in many ways. We feel a special responsibility to maintain that, so we will look at all ways of doing that, not just in the Flathead but throughout the province where those opportunities are.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask one last, probably, final question on the Flathead. Parks Canada has identified this area as of significant interest to it, especially after the UNESCO report but even before the study was completed.

[1625]

What it requires is a willingness that the province so far hasn't shown to expand either the provincial park boundaries that exist now or to create a wildlife management area that is explicit in some of the area where it has rightly made it off-limits to oil and gas exploration and mineral mining. But it's about next steps now, really.

I know that Parks Canada's interest is there. I can't remember the name of the rolling park-planning future….
[ Page 7201 ]
It has it on its website. I can't remember the technical term for it right now, but they have identified it as significant. UNESCO has. It's going to take a signal from the province of British Columbia.

I think there's merit there, and without committing to anything specific, British Columbia could work with the federal government, like it has in the South Okanagan, on a feasibility study and see where that goes. It's a way to engage the public on what that would look like — if a park, indeed, is feasible — and how it would serve the recreational and natural values of that space.

It's quite an historical accident that the Flathead Valley was spared industrial development. Literally, the railway didn't go through there when the nation was being united by rail. We're lucky to have it. The world's attention has been brought to this. I think that the MOU with Montana has been lauded. But it's about next steps now. It's about removing some of the uncertainty, and it's about actually putting something in place that formalizes the protection beyond just an MOU.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I believe that the MOU and the steps we've taken to prevent oil and gas exploration, mining exploration, do provide a lot of certainty. It's been successfully managed for forestry, for recreation, for guiding, outfitting, trapping — important to local families and First Nations.

I think that something that the member hasn't discussed is the local communities and consulting with local communities. We talked about this in terms of the South Okanagan. I think a really important facet that comes into this discussion is how decisions made in Victoria impact local communities — people of the Kootenays in this instance.

I think it's important that we continue to discuss with people who are affected by decisions in Victoria. We are very comfortable and very proud, in fact, of the steps we've taken to preserve the conservation values in the Flathead while still having sustainable logging operations — forestry operations that support the people of British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister — because it's referenced in the service plan — what the government is planning on marine protected area expansion. B.C. is woefully behind the targets set by the United Nations on what ideal marine protected areas should look like, what the percentage is.

As we've noted, we're well ahead of the target on the land base. But for marine protected areas that is not the case. We have the Pacific Coast Collaborative. I know there are some discussions. But I want to ask the minister what his ministry is actively engaged in at this time and how many FTEs or persons are actively working on the marine protected area strategy in government.

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: As the member is very aware, I'm sure, the southern Gulf Islands are part of a national park. We certainly have been working with the federal government in terms of looking at a national marine conservation area reserve in the southern Strait of Georgia to expand the amount of area that's protected. Those discussions are ongoing. Again, with the nomination of our new federal cabinet, I look forward to continuing those discussions.

R. Fleming: I think we'll come back to the marine protected areas at a different time, maybe when we ask some fish questions. It relates to fish stocks, obviously, and their health.

I want to ask about a report that government received from the Auditor General. It was a very thorough report on parks planning and protected areas in British Columbia. Its main conclusion, I think, speaks for itself and is quite concerning. It found that B.C. Parks had failed to meet its own stated goal of preserving ecological integrity or, in fact, of even knowing, in many parts of its areas of responsibility, what that looks like — something like 75 percent of parks and protected areas not having an up-to-date or even an original management plan in place.

That's a pretty significant conclusion. It's one that this minister's predecessor didn't like to hear and dismissed as being too expensive to address.

I wanted to ask the minister, having received that report and having had time to consider it inside the ministry, if it is necessarily so that it's expensive to plan climate adaptation, which he has another division of his government to help with; whether it's too expensive to plan for containing and controlling invasive species, for doing an inventory of what flora and fauna are in those parks and assessing the species-at-risk issues within some of the areas that we have set aside in British Columbia for preservation.

I don't think that it necessarily is so. I think there are a number of British Columbians and post-secondary institutions and all kinds of resources that we could bring to the table to help update and implement management plans.

[1635]

I think the Great Bear rain forest is a very good recent example of how that might be done in different parts of the province.

Really, the question to the minister is: what has been the response to the pretty shocking finding that so much of B.C.'s park and protected area doesn't have an adequate management plan in place?

Hon. T. Lake: The Auditor General, of course, serves a valuable function to hold the government's feet to the fire in all levels of government. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the report. If there are things
[ Page 7202 ]
that we can do better, we're always willing to strive to do better.

We have looked at the report. Staff have had an opportunity to look at all of the facets of the report and the seven recommendations, have responded to those seven recommendations and have set target dates, some of which are largely complete and some of which will occur over the next few years.

The total estimated cost of implementing all of the recommendations as outlined in the Auditor General's report is about $355 million over ten years, which is a significant amount of money. I'm appreciative of the member's suggestion that we look to other organizations, such as post-secondary institutions that are government-funded, to help us in that. We're always willing to work with others to make sure that we squeeze every cent out of every tax dollar. If there are ways of doing things better and saving money for the taxpayer at the same time, we're always willing to look at that.

R. Fleming: I think there are a number of things in the seven recommendations that the Auditor gave that require the bureaucracy — I don't use that in any negative sense at all — of your ministry to address around conservation management programs not being well-thought-out or having a strategic direction.

There was a recommendation around the master plan policy being clarified so that we understand and appreciate the ecological goals for the areas that we have set aside. But there's one specifically, I think, for the minister to decide on, and that is around more robust and regular reporting to the Legislative Assembly.

Recommendation 7 says that the ministry should periodically report to the Legislative Assembly — and, therefore, through to the public — "on how it is conserving ecological integrity in the province's parks and protected areas system." The report says that there is a lot of room for improvement here, and public confidence would be served by having MLAs being issued regular annual reports or biannual reports on how this is coming along.

I would ask the minister — since he's in charge of the place now; this report was delivered to somebody else — in considering this, whether he agrees that reporting specifically on parks and ecological integrity to the Legislative Assembly on a periodic basis is a good thing.

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: I guess the short answer is yes. I do believe that we should report out. In fact, that's what we do on a regular basis now. We have our plan on our website.

Recommendation 7 does speak to reporting to the Legislative Assembly as well as the public. Certainly, we are committed to doing that. In fact, the first enhanced annual report is now complete. Performance measures are being finalized and will be used in our annual report that will be posted on the website and shared with all MLAs as well as the public.

Our service plan, I should say, includes our performance measures: things like how we're doing in terms of conservation values; how we're doing in terms of parks and public satisfaction, which is over 80 percent at the moment.

We do appreciate the work of the Auditor General. Many of the recommendations are being addressed, are in progress and are scheduled to be well on their way to being complete either in 2011 or 2012.

If I could request a short recess, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: How long of a recess are you looking for?

Hon. T. Lake: Ten minutes.

The Chair: Ten minutes. We will reconvene, by that clock, at two minutes to five.

The committee recessed from 4:43 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

The Chair: We will now come back into session on Vote 25. For the thousands and thousands watching this live, I'd like to let you know that we're doing the estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

R. Fleming: I thought we might be concluded with parks, but just a few more questions there. Just going back to the parking meter announcement that the government made, I wanted to ask the minister: could you explain to me how contractors who formerly were able to keep the revenues from the meters will be compensated for that loss of revenue? Will it be done in this fiscal year, and will their contracts be adjusted in future years if they're more than a year in duration?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to put on the record that we were talking about the amount of land in parks and protected areas. Provincially it's 13.6 percent, which is above the UN recommendation of 12 percent, and 0.6 percent is federally protected land in British Columbia, for a total of 14.2 percent. I just wanted to mention that.

In terms of the parking meter situation, there are obviously revenues that accrue to government from the former use of parking meters. Part of that revenue was to meet our obligations to park facility operators. Those park facility operators will remain whole. There will be no change in the amount of revenue that they receive as a result of that decision.

[1655]

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering, because the estimates for this ministry haven't changed, where the money will
[ Page 7203 ]
come from internally from government. It changes the budget and how moneys flow and the total payments to be made. I'm wondering how that is to be achieved or whether it's money coming into the ministry from somewhere else in government.

Hon. T. Lake: Approximately $650,000 of parking revenue was committed to park facility operators. That money will come from our voted allocation in terms of our ministry. The budget was already designed before that decision and announcement was made.

We have clear direction that no services are to be reduced as a result of that decision. We will manage and monitor closely to make sure that that is, in fact, the case. We will work with our colleagues in government, if necessary, to ensure that happens. If that's a matter of working within other areas of government, we will do that work as well.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

R. Fleming: Just to be clear and to put it on the record, all of the park contractors that had received revenues from parking meters will be made whole. I heard the minister say that, but if he wants to say it explicitly in that way…. But also, within the ministry — I'm still not clear where the money is coming from within the ministry.

Can he give an assurance that it's not going to come from cuts to programs or conservation officers or any of the other areas in the budget within his ministry where we've already been discussing cuts all afternoon here? In other words, are the park operators going to be made whole by government being good on its commitment, and it won't come from another program area or service that his ministry provides?

Hon. T. Lake: I did say explicitly that park facility operators will be left whole following this decision. We will certainly work within our existing budget to make sure that no services are reduced. As the member is well aware, in government it's a large budget in terms of day-to-day operations. Decisions are made. Some things come to fruition in terms of programming; others don't.

We will monitor closely the operation of our ministry and look for savings where we can to make sure that we provide the level of service that has been prescribed for our park system. If we run into those budgetary pressures, we will work with our colleagues within government to make sure, as directed, that no services to our park system are….

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about a marine park in Howe Sound, Halkett Bay on Gambier Island. It's a class A marine park. It's one that has a level of protection that he'll be familiar with under the Park Act, a number of restrictions on both the seabed and the foreshore and a plan to manage that park. Its neighbour is a United Church property. There has been a community that has long held an interest in this and cooperated with the province in making this a key part of our park system.

[1700]

The minister's predecessor rejected a permit application from an Artificial Reef Society proposal to sink a battleship in the bay as an artificial reef. That was seen as incompatible and not permitted with the Park Act, and it was rejected.

Lo and behold, my understanding is that this is now going to proceed because we've had — oh, he's here too — three Ministers of Environment since Christmas, so there has been a little bit of uncertainty around who's in charge.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I think so, since November.

During one of the interim periods there, this was done. It involved the province not working in a transparent fashion but somehow making an arrangement to receive, as a gift, the ship and taking some responsibility for how it went.

Now, this was against the advice of staff, very clearly. Ministry staff had rendered opinions on the inappropriateness of this vessel — I shouldn't even call it a vessel; it's the size of a football field — this destroyer, being sunk in this class A marine park, but now it looks like it's at risk of proceeding.

I'm hoping the minister is aware — if not, he can ask his staff — but how did we get to this point between 2010, when…? The previous minister from Chilliwack-Kent had let the proponent know that it would not happen, that he would uphold the Park Act, and was very transparent to all of the interested parties in releasing documents and releasing letters. How did we get to a backroom situation where suddenly it looked like it was going to be a done deal in the early months of this year?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the creation of artificial reefs, of course, is an interesting subject. A great article in National Geographic just recently. I hope the member opposite had a chance to read that and look at the number of artificial reefs around North America that have been instituted over the last number of years. What artificial reefs do is to really support and revive fish habitat. That's one of the positive things that comes from projects like this.

In fact, the Squamish First Nation are very supportive of this project. It's an opportunity for them to see some of the fish habitat restored and use it as an educational opportunity for their students, the young members of Squamish First Nation.
[ Page 7204 ]

The discussions with the United Church were held, and the proposal was changed to address some of their concerns.

In terms of the park management plan, which is silent on this type of use, it was deemed that this use was in fact not inconsistent with the park management plan and adds to conservation values in terms of fish, adds to recreational opportunities. I'm sure the member opposite would agree that looking for recreational opportunities and economic opportunities for the people of British Columbia, as well as many visitors who would come to dive there, is a very positive thing.

R. Fleming: I did not see the National Geographic that the minister mentioned, but I shall seek it out.

It's interesting you mentioned its connection to rebounding fish populations. I wanted to ask him if he's aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the federal government actually reviewed this proposal to sink this battleship in the small confines of Halkett Bay and did a preliminary assessment. They stated that the damage would be unacceptable and that this project should go elsewhere, which was the view of the Ministry of Environment as well.

[1705]

They favoured this group looking at Porteau Cove as a much more suitable location. That was the position of the Ministry of Environment up until at least the tail end of 2010.

So the federal government said: "No, unacceptable." The province said: "No, it doesn't meet our park plan." Again I would ask the minister: how did we get to this situation where, somewhere, staff were overruled, the preliminary environmental assessments by the federal government were ignored and an approval was secured?

Hon. T. Lake: I am advised that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is still certainly in conversation with our ministry on this. The Artificial Reef Society of B.C. is in fact working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to ensure that there is no harmful alteration to the habitat.

I would point out that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recognized that the area where this vessel would be sunk is actually almost sterilized from the existence of logbooms. The sinking of this vessel would encourage…. It's been shown in other situations to improve fish habitat, particularly rockfish habitat, as I mentioned, and supported very much by the First Nations in the area.

R. Fleming: Well, let me read from a letter from the minister's own ministry that rejects the application. It says:

"Halkett Bay Park is a small park, occupying 290 hectares of upland plus foreshore in the Howe Sound. Its management plan direction for the park includes the following purpose: to provide expanded marine-oriented recreational opportunities in Howe Sound while conserving the unique visual quality of the area. Boating, including overnight moorage; hiking; viewing; swimming; and picnicking are recognized activities within the park.

"The park is less than 23 hectares, and the activity will cause the natural resource, the current natural nearshore fine-sediment seabed, to be destroyed, damaged and disturbed. After review of the application and a variety of information regarding this proposal, a permit cannot be issued authorizing this type of activity in this park."

This is the opinion of the Ministry of Environment personnel that were responsible for reviewing the application. That was their view — unacceptable — destroyed, damaging and disturbing to Halkett Bay.

I would ask the minister, actually, to maybe clarify: what is the status? Is the sinking of the ship going ahead at this point in time? Is the staff letter and direction and the decision to decline the permit from only eight months ago now being overturned?

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the location was changed slightly — well, not to a significant degree in terms of habitat, perhaps, but the Artificial Reef Society has donated the vessel to the province of British Columbia, so there's a little bit of a legal difference there in terms of what we can do in a park and what someone else can do in a park.

Regardless, the decision was made, and it was reviewed, and a decision was made to continue looking at this proposal, so the Artificial Reef Society of B.C. is now working with the federal agencies that the member mentions — Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada — to ensure that the habitat is protected and to ensure that the vessel is cleaned and free of any contaminants that might hurt the environment.

Until all of those agencies are satisfied with the steps taken, this decision is pending, to make sure that those conditions can be met and those agencies are in fact satisfied with the impact that this project will have on the habitat.

R. Fleming: Well, the previous letter I read, in which the ministry very firmly said no to the permit application, based on criteria that they use to evaluate permit applications like that in parks, you know, routinely — probably not routinely but periodically….

There was another letter, because the society was very persistent that they wanted to sink this battleship in Halkett Bay and that no other location would do.

Again, the ministry staff person wrote back and said, "After consideration of the offer" — which was to gift the ship to the province to sink itself — "the ministry is not prepared to accept the donation of the ship for sinking in Halkett Bay," and again recommended an alternate site, Saltery Bay Park, which has a suitable depth for a
[ Page 7205 ]
ship such as the HMCS Annapolis, and then said: "If your society would like to see the province undergo an amendment process for the master plan, the ability of the region to conduct such a review is based on competing management planning priorities, and it will require a reassignment of resources to amend the master plan."

Now, we've been talking all afternoon about how limited resources are in the Ministry of Environment to accommodate requests, particularly ones that have been on grounds that the ministry turned it down — in a sense, an appeal that is dragging on for months and months and months. To then ask for further resources for something that the ministry has rejected and is rejecting again in November, five months ago….

I want to ask the minister whether these resources were secured. In other words, were ministry personnel and planning priorities reshuffled in order to accommodate an amendment process and facilitation of the sinking of this destroyer in an area that your ministry said was completely unsuitable for it to be in the first place?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to just correct a statement that the member made earlier that the former Minister of Environment rejected this proposal.

[1715]

He has read from a letter signed by a ministry employee who, essentially, rejected the proposal, and the former Minister of Environment reviewed the situation. Some of that involved legal opinion, in terms of donation of the ship to the province. Like anyone, I think that we recognize that in the presence of a more fulsome discussion, more information, people actually can change their positions on things.

I note that some members in this room have done that in terms of climate change and carbon tax. I think that's a great thing that happens when more information comes forward — that you actually are willing to re-examine decisions and then come forward with a position based on more information.

R. Fleming: The fact is, though, that the former, former minister stood behind staff and the decision and released all of the documents related to the request in the interest of transparency. That stopped, following his taking on other duties as a cabinet minister.

We now have no idea why there was a reversal of the legal position and a decision that had been made or the justification for it. Now, I know that the lobbyist that was working for the society, Mr. Enemark, who is well known I think, to the government side in particular, was very busy on this file and worked with the former minister, I suppose, to change his predecessor's decision and staff.

I would ask if we could get some understanding and the reasons and justification for why there was a reversal on this by releasing any documents relating to this file. It would seem unfair to make anyone have to pursue that through freedom of information, considering that the practice at the outset of this proposal was to release all documentation to the interested parties, whether they're from Gambier Island or were part of a different interest group.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as I said, certainly the legal conditions changed in terms of the ownership of the vessel. That was perhaps one of the concerns that the ministry had initially — and liability issues.

But when this was reviewed by the former Environment Minister, a meeting with stakeholders was held on February 1 of this year, 2011, and some of the opinions expressed there had changed a little bit, with the location changed slightly for the sinking of the ship. The United Church — I guess you could characterize their response as less concerned than they were initially. Review of the management plan identified that diving is a low-use activity, and the management plan is silent on the creation of an artificial reef.

[1720]

As I said, it's a matter of reviewing information, looking at decisions. New information was added in terms of the legal situation — the effect it might have on one of the property owners, the United Church — and a decision was made with that new information.

R. Fleming: I think that the minister is being extremely generous to some of the hypothetical reasons he's offered as to why the decision might have changed. The documents from staff and the history on this application are pretty clear that this was not appropriate or suitable or contemplated in a class A marine park like this.

If the ship is to be sunk — and this is going to proceed because the government have done something in the back rooms to change their original decision by a minister who was only there briefly as an interloper — then, would this minister now, at least, give all the parties concerned something that they never had, which was public input into it? He can do that by ordering an environmental assessment.

That's his ministerial prerogative to do that. It can be done quickly, and it can be done efficiently, but it can also give all of the interest groups a say in this. It obliges the proponent, actually, not to use lobbyist channels in the back room but to explain and answer questions that people legitimately have.

I would say that there's an additional reason why an environmental assessment might be appropriate for this proposal for the sinking of this destroyer in this location. It's not about the cleanliness and the state of the ship and the removal of fuel. Obviously, the ministry would do its due diligence and ensure that all of that was done and
[ Page 7206 ]
that it was in clean condition to the highest standard before it was sunk.

The additional reason why an environmental assessment might be warranted here is the original one that the ministry gave. They said that in a park of this small size and a ship of this size being sunk, the nearshore fine-sediment seabed would be destroyed, damaged and disturbed.

So that, to me, warrants an environmental assessment to determine whether that's true. That was the opinion of ministry staff. This is a letter only from August of last year — and again, another letter in November of 2010.

I would ask the minister: would he commit to having an environmental assessment before something is done that may potentially damage a class A marine park that we have here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I certainly don't want to let the opportunity pass to acknowledge the contribution made by the former Environment Minister who I would not characterize, as the member said, as an interloper. He’s someone who has dedicated a very large part of his life to public service, served the people of British Columbia extremely well, a huge advocate for the environment — we were talking earlier about the southern Strait of Georgia marine conservation area — and someone who has dedicated considerable time to that project. I certainly don't want to let the opportunity pass to recognize his important contributions to the people of British Columbia.

What I will say to the member is that we are meeting on June 7 in Vancouver, when I'm there for other meetings, with the group that is concerned about this project. I also mentioned that there are a number of hurdles before this was project was complete that the Artificial Reef Society would have to clear with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, with Transport Canada and Environment Canada. We will certainly make sure that we are closely engaged with those federal agencies to ensure that if this project goes ahead as envisioned, there are no harmful alterations to the environment.

But we are committed to working with the people who are concerned, and I am willing to keep an open mind and look forward to meeting with them on June 7.

R. Fleming: Will the minister discuss the possibility of an environmental assessment with whomever has been invited to that meeting on June 7?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I don't know what I'll discuss, to be honest. I go into the meeting with an open mind.

[1725]

R. Fleming: I'd like to move on from the parks section of estimates and talk about environmental…

A Voice: It's just getting interesting, for God's sake.

R. Fleming: Well, you should have been here earlier, former — not former, but former-former-former — Minister.

…assessment in British Columbia and some projects that have either undergone an environmental assessment or are in the process of one.

I maybe want to start just in terms of the global budget of the environmental assessment office in this budget and ask: why, when this minister and other ministers in this government have spoken on occasion about how there are something like $30 billion worth of economic development projects on the land base pending — of course, not all of them will go through, for a variety of reasons, but potentially in the hopper for consideration — and when, in the very frank words of one of the former resource ministers of the government, "the ability and capacity of the province to respond in a timely and effective basis have been debilitated…"?

I think he used a few expletives in there, too, when he made that explanation, then did a period outside of cabinet and is now back in government. I won't put it in those colourful terms.

When there is much for the environmental assessment office to do and difficulty in many applications to do it properly and in a timely way, and with the staff and ability to have an appropriate scope for these assessments, why, given all of that, would this budget cut further funds from the environmental assessment office?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the budget reduction for the environmental assessment office…. I thank the member for recognizing the great work that the office does. I'm joined now by the executive director of the office, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, who does a tremendous job for us as executive director.

The budget is down $62,000, and I'm advised that that is directly a result of some chargeback…. No, I better get that right, because I'm not a very good accountant in terms of these. It's about benefits to employees. I'm going to just take a second, Mr. Chair, if I could, to get it straight.

It's a decrease of $62,000 due to a change in the employee benefit chargeback and will not affect the office's operations.

[1730]

R. Fleming: The minister will be aware, though, that this is a further cut to the 7 percent cut that the office received in the 2009-2010 budget. That was a significant one — not $62,000 in benefit chargebacks, but $640,000 in that year, when funding for the EAO was $9.4 million. It's now down to $8.7 million.

The service plan of this ministry references how there's an expectation and anticipation with projects
[ Page 7207 ]
pending that demand on the EAO will be very strong this year and in coming years, yet we don't see that reflected in the resourcing of this office. We see another, albeit slight, cut on top of what was a significant cut in the previous fiscal year.

Given that some people from this very government have publicly expressed their doubts about the way that applications can be processed thoroughly and quickly, why would it be targeted for further cuts in this fiscal year?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to reiterate that we did not cut the budget this year. The operational budget is exactly the same. The $62,000 is charged back to employee benefit chargeback — which is an accounting treatment, I am advised.

The member, thanks to my very knowledgable staff here, might be reminded that he asked the same question last year, and the answer remains that last year a 10 percent corporate cost-saving reduction was due to a shared services budget that was included.

It's an accounting treatment, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the chair. It actually has no impact on the operations of the office. It's simply an accounting treatment, as we use shared services.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could tell me how the number of assessments this year compares to previous years.

Hon. T. Lake: In 2010-11, 71 projects were considered reviewable under the act. Well, there are 71 projects in the system at this point in time. We do not have the exact number from last year. I'm given to understand that the number being reviewed at the moment is slightly down from last year, but we will commit to finding that exact number for the member as it is sent to us.

R. Fleming: Is there a reason why the ministry doesn't report out on the number of applications that are completed or pending? Is there also a reason? The ministry service plan projects or anticipates an increase in demand and maybe even has an ability to foresee the complexity and scope of some of them as those applications are made.

Is there a reason why the budget is, therefore, not based on that? It seems to be not at all related to demand or complexity or workload. Looking at it from the outside and not having information about how many applications are pending, it doesn't seem to be attached in any way to a workplan.

[1735]

Hon. T. Lake: The member asks a very good question, and the answer isn't necessarily simple, as the prediction of what will come through the environmental assessment office is dependent on many factors. It's dependent on the commodity prices for many of the minerals in terms of projects that come through the environmental assessment office. It's certainly contingent upon the state of the economy. As the economy is in a challenging situation, we would likely expect fewer projects. When the economy is robust, we would expect more projects.

Not every project has the same level of complexity. In fact, it depends on where you are in the cycle in terms of the assessments. Some will be fairly simple, and some will be more complex, and depending where they are in their review process, more time and resources are necessary at different points of that process. Some are halted because the proponent finds that the economic situation maybe doesn't warrant going further.

Like the economists, I guess, we always have to take predictions with a bit of a grain of salt, so it is very hard to predict what the output of the office is going to be in any one year. We certainly have to be good fiscal managers. We do have a budget that is based on sort of historic needs of the office, and we are quite comfortable with where that budget is at the moment.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about what plan he has in place to deal with the backlog in projects that there is currently, and if there is a plan, how that's funded — in other words, to make up the lag and to complete environmental assessments in the service plan.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, there is no backlog of projects in the system. We have key performance measures that we do measure, and in our service plan those are outlined.

We are one of the few jurisdictions that has legislated timelines. The timeline sometimes can be stopped when a proponent may want to request a pause in the process before it is in the reviewable stage. The minister can ask for a pause if there is enough information or need to do that.

We do have a process that's legislated for 180 days, and I can report that our targets are to meet that 100 percent of the time. There is no backlog in the projects that are being considered by the environmental assessment office at this time.

[1740]

R. Fleming: I'm going to ask the minister about the Enbridge joint review panel on the pipeline and on the Kitimat port facility proposal. It's something that the new Premier of the province has said very little about other than to say that it shouldn't be prejudged — the outcome of that environmental assessment. She said that very clearly.

One of the more high-profile environmental assessments that recently she showed no hesitation about prejudging or casting judgment on is the Prosperity
[ Page 7208 ]
mine at Taseko. In fact, she said: "I think that Ottawa…wants to change it. At the political level they see how dumb this decision is, so I think there's an appetite to change it." "This isn't the final decision as far as I'm concerned," she also said.

Now, the federal Minister of the Environment — Prentice, at the time — was quite clear why his government turned down that mine application and why the application was no longer valid for that proposal. He used language that is rarely used by a minister of the environment about the destruction of entire ecosystems, about the significant contaminants and risk that the entire application played on the freshwater systems there and the surrounding lands.

Here we have a Premier saying, "Don't second-guess the federal government on the proposal to take the tar sands out of Alberta and ship it in supertankers through the Douglas Channel in the northern remote waters; don't prejudge that," but on the Prosperity mine, even after it was rejected decisively by ministry staff and independent scientists and the minister himself, said: "I'm second-guessing that decision."

Can the minister comment on what exactly the Premier is going to do around making her remarks on environmental assessment applications that are in process? Is it going to be to reserve judgment, or is it going to be to provide harsh judgment?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I can say this. The B.C. environmental assessment office is well-recognized for ensuring the protection of the environment. But of course, there are other pillars that decisions are made upon, including health, heritage, culture and economic conditions.

The Prosperity mine decision was a prerogative of the federal government based on a different system than is used in British Columbia. We accept the decision that the federal government obviously has made, but that doesn't mean that there won't be other proposals put forward by the proponents. When and if those proposals are put forward, we will be eager to work with our federal counterparts and examine the strengths of that proposal.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister. The Premier went quite far in saying that she believed that this could be overturned politically, that as a first minister she would use political influence with the government in Ottawa immediately, because this was her family-first agenda — to overturn that decision.

I think I have the precise words of Minister Prentice now. It was described as "environmental impacts so pronounced, so scathing in terms of environmental effects that cabinet considered this, and it cannot approve the project under those circumstances."

So again, the question is: what is the Premier doing at this point in time in terms…? The environmental assessment has been completed and has been definitive federally. What is she doing? She pledged when she was running for the job to overturn that decision. We have a new government elected federally. Is she negotiating in some way with the political level in Ottawa to undo the assessment that they did and to issue a permit and clear the way for federal approvals?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it's certainly my understanding that the decision is one that cannot be overturned. I think that is quite clear. It doesn't mean that another proposal couldn't come forward that would be considered.

[1745]

One of the strengths of the environmental assessment process in British Columbia is the work that's done with the proponents, with concerned stakeholders, with First Nations to understand the potential impacts, positive and negative, of any proposed project and to mitigate any of the deleterious effects of any project.

We know that if we want a robust economy, we need to access our land base for resources, but we also know that we need to do it in a sustainable way and make sure that our children and grandchildren have the same ability to have opportunities that we have.

There's a balance there that is struck in terms of health benefits, social benefits, heritage benefits, and economic and environmental benefits. With any new proposal coming forward we will work with the proponents, we will work with First Nations, and we will work with the federal government to ensure that whatever proposal comes forward meets the tests that we have outlined.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister to explain some of the reservations that were picked up by a Ministry of Environment staff, some of the findings, during the Prosperity application, the Taseko Mines application, that mirrored what the federal authorities had found in terms of threats to habitat, because it is quite different — even though the Ministry of Environment officials were not in a position to recommend, presumably, either for or against the project. They were merely giving their comments as professional biologists and experts. They had suggested that a number of things had not been satisfied that would allow a mitigation strategy to be implemented successfully.

Now, that is quite different than the then executive director's report of the environmental assessment office, Mr. Junger, who made the conclusion that is significantly at odds with Minister Prentice's conclusion, and the federal authorities. Mr. Junger said that there would be "no significant adverse effects in the Prosperity mine application."

How can two environmental assessment applications be so at odds with one another in their conclusions? And how can Ministry of Environment staff — professional biologists and others — who did pick up some
[ Page 7209 ]
of the things that their federal counterparts cited, then have their opinions completely unreflected in the environmental assessment office's report?

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to point out that the environmental assessment office here in British Columbia is very transparent. In fact, the reasons and recommendations of that office are posted in a transparent manner on the environmental assessment office's website.

To say that our office did not recognize there would be deleterious effects is simply not true. The office recognized that there would be some environmental impacts, particularly to Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. Those were significant adverse environmental impacts. We recognized that.

We also recognized, as I mentioned, that there are other pillars that come into play when we're looking at the benefits of any application — 375 person-years of employment annually during both the two-year construction period and the 20-year operational life of the mine; the high-paying jobs; the opportunities for local economic activity as well as First Nations; capital costs of $800 million; an annual operating cost of $200 million over a 20-year life span.

I mentioned that there is a balance. When we look at opportunities on the land base, we will always have this balance where we look at the desire for economic activity and the need for sustainability. The federal process is a different process. The review panel uses different criteria, looks at things differently, so it is not surprising that two different bodies come to two different conclusions. That isn't to say that a new application, a new strategy on the part of a proponent would have the same outcome.

[1750]

I look forward to having our office examine any new proposal that comes forward, and we will certainly work with the proponent, the federal government and First Nations to ensure that that balance is something that British Columbians can accept, because we recognize that there always will be some positive benefits, some negative benefits to any major project on the land base.

D. Donaldson: Well, a good environmental assessment review process, like the federal process, is supposed to be a fact-finding technical exercise so that a well-informed recommendation can be made to the respective minister.

The current minister rightly points out that mitigation measures were recommended by the provincial process in the Prosperity case. However, the issue here and the problem here is that, because of changes made by this Liberal government to the environmental assessment review process, mitigation is the only option left. Rejection is not possible, it appears, in this process, and I'll tell you why.

In section 21 of the changes in 2002 from the 1995 act it enables the minister to provide policy direction to the director conducting an assessment. For instance, a government policy that promotes mining development is not going to allow for an environmental assessor to reject or impede a new mining project. The proponent is deciding what the process will be in this case.

This is the issue. This is the nut that we have to crack. It's not the environmental assessment office or the people doing the work there. They're working within the framework that's been provided to them. That framework is a faulty framework, and that's the responsibility of the provincial government and the environmental assessment process and what some would say is the gutting of the original act that occurred in 2002. We didn't get into that.

My question is…. The minister says that they're willing to consider another proposal when it comes forward. Well, in fact, Taseko Mines, the proponent of the Prosperity project, according to their website in March, has resubmitted to the federal government. Has the province received this submission?

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly don't want to take from the member's remarks that he doesn't want to see opportunities for mining in the province of British Columbia. I know that certainly in my area of the province it's an extremely valuable economic driver. Highland Valley copper employs about 700 people at an average wage….

A Voice: That's my riding.

Hon. T. Lake: Okay, maybe next time. I said in my neck of the woods; I didn't say my riding.

It's $100,000 average salary for 700 people, 400 of whom live in my riding, member for Fraser-Nicola. So these jobs support our health care, support our education, support all of the ancillary businesses, whether they be trucking, mechanical repair, Costco or the coffee shops of the communities they serve.

Logan Lake certainly appreciates the fact that Teck Cominco has one of the finest copper and molybdenum mines in the world. I know that the member supports mining activities as many British Columbians do, because we know that we are an exporting province that depends on our natural resources, but we want to develop it in a way that's sustainable. The member insinuates that the decisions are presupposed before the process actually starts.

I'd like to point out to the member that, in fact, about 57 percent of projects that enter the process don't make it through the process, because when we work with the proponents, we look at the positive and negative effects that may occur, and 57 percent of those projects are unable to meet the bar that we set for them.

The fact that those that come out of the process are approved doesn't mean that many don't fall along the way,
[ Page 7210 ]
given the bars that are set for them by the environmental assessment office. A good example recently is a project for jet fuel at YVR.

[1755]

Before the review process started, the consultation pointed out some significant public concern. The proponents, recognizing through that public consultation that there were some concerns, have committed to re-evaluating the proposals.

There's a project that I guess the member opposite would say we would just rubber-stamp, but in fact, the process worked very well. Public consultation pointed out significant concerns. The proponent now is committed to re-evaluating the proposal.

D. Donaldson: Certainly, I'm well aware of the $3.7 billion industry that mining is to British Columbia. That's why I'm quite taken aback that…. This minister surely can't be advocating that the Prosperity process is an example of a beneficial process to the mining industry in B.C. Actually, the delays incurred were a result of the changes made to the environmental assessment process that this government brought in, in 2002.

What I am advocating for here is an efficient, credible provincial environmental assessment process that will reduce delays in getting answers from the environmental assessment office. That's what I'm advocating for. I'm sure he does not think that Prosperity was a great situation for either the proponents of the mine or the people who had concerns about the mine.

I wanted to point out that the former federal Minister of the Environment said a number of stakeholders didn't take part in the provincial process, and this is why the federal and provincial processes arrived at different conclusions. One of the stakeholders that didn't take part in the provincial process was the First Nations. They didn't have a chance to speak at that process.

These are the reasons I'm bringing this up. I'm trying to make sure that we have a robust environmental assessment review process that includes all stakeholders. The changes to the Environmental Assessment Act that were brought in by this government run counter to that.

I didn't hear the answer from the minister. Has the province received the new submission that Taseko has submitted to the federal government on Prosperity?

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to correct for the record a statement I made about the number of applications that don't make it through the process. The number actually is 47 percent, Member, rather than 56 percent. I apologize for putting the wrong number out, but a significant number actually don't make it through the process.

We could talk about the Prosperity mine proposal that came in, in 1995. Certainly, if the member is saying that the system at that time was not a timely process, well, I can't take responsibility for that.

In terms of receiving a new application from Prosperity, we have not received a new application. We've received a very brief project description, as I understand the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has. So certainly, far more information needs to be collected at this time.

D. Donaldson: Given the failure on aboriginal consultation by this government in the first environmental assessment review process with the Prosperity proposal, will this new submission trigger another provincial consultation process, so they can get it right this time?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, if and when we receive an application from the proponent to amend the certificate that has been issued by the environmental assessment office, we will certainly consult with First Nations on that amendment.

[1800]

We take our relationship with First Nations very seriously, as witnessed today with the significant signing of the Yale treaty. To point out to the member, too, the federal government has an obligation to consult with First Nations as well. They have a separate process. We work collaboratively with them. First Nations consultation is extremely important and will be conducted if and when we get an application for an amendment to the permit.

D. Donaldson: I'd also like to point out that this activity takes place on traditional territories of the First Nations involved. Mining is constitutionally an activity under provincial jurisdiction, so there is a huge and important role for the province to play in that.

As far as this proposal goes, in the first meeting that Premier Clark had with Prime Minister Harper, she said: "I'm interested in making sure we find a way to get that mine going in British Columbia." So it appears the Premier has prejudged this submission that Taseko has made that the province hasn't seen yet. You said you've seen a briefing note.

My question, then, to the minister is: in relation to aboriginal consultation, what does he intend to do differently than the first EA process in order to avoid delays and bring this project to an answer stage more quickly?

Hon. T. Lake: I want, firstly, to correct…. It was not a briefing note that I was referring to. It was a project description that the office has received — a brief description of the project, not a briefing note to me.

The environmental assessment process, we feel, was carried out in meeting our obligation for consultation with the First Nations. We recognize that when decisions are made, not all people involved are going to agree with the decision. If an amendment is applied for, for this certificate, we will commit to following our obligations to consultation with the First Nations.
[ Page 7211 ]

We recognize that First Nations have a huge role to play in terms of development on the land base. Again, using my area for an example, with the New Afton mine, the Skeetchestn and Tk'emlúps First Nations enjoy a revenue-sharing agreement, whereby they get a significant portion of revenue that would normally come to the province, historically. It's going to support those two First Nations communities.

I think our commitment to First Nations and ensuring that they, in fact, share and prosper when these projects come forward is clear, and we will commit to meet our extensive obligations to First Nations consultation on any application to amend the certificate.

D. Donaldson: I'd like to point out one area where…. Because an adequate legislative framework by the government is not in place, it leads to delays on issues like this. There's no established statutory regime for the Crown to carry out its duty to consult and accommodate when it comes to First Nations in the EA process.

What the EAO contends is that it can carry out this duty in addition to its assessment role. Without a legislative regime, they just don't know how to do that.

I'll give an example. When a proponent says a specific measure in relation to a First Nation can be delivered through an impact-benefits agreement, then the EAO sees this as accommodation. But the problem is that it's unclear whether the impact-benefits agreement is ever negotiated, because it doesn't have to be negotiated before the EA actually signs off on the project.

[1805]

What can happen, then, is that the commitment to deliver an IBA can be taken by the EAO as accommodation. My question to the minister would be, then: wouldn't he feel it would be a better system if impact-benefit agreements would have to be signed before the environmental assessment office actually gives approval to a project involving First Nations?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the environmental assessment office, actually, does not require an impact-benefit agreement, but it certainly encourages those to occur. Just reading from our environmental assessment office fairness and service code, in terms of consultations with First Nations:

"The EAO will clearly indicate its expectation of proponents in relation to First Nations and the Crown's duty to consult."

That duty is outlined by the courts, and we follow the law in that respect.

"This may include directing proponents to involve First Nations in relevant studies, incorporate community and traditional knowledge into baseline studies, identify First Nation interests that may be affected by a proposed project and identify and develop measures to prevent, avoid or mitigate any potential significant adverse effects on First Nations' interest.

"The EAO encourages proponents to explore benefit-sharing agreements with First Nations where the parties consider that to be in their mutual interest."

So the environmental assessment office meets its duty under the Crown to consult with First Nations. I think it is well known that this government encourages that proponents involve First Nations in all aspects of the projects, particularly as it relates to economic benefits.

R. Fleming: I think that the comment and the reason why my colleague raised the lack of First Nations consultation during the provincial EA in the Prosperity example is because the federal government was actually trying to give the province an out and an excuse as to why they reached such radically different conclusions about the balance, as the minister puts it, contained in the application.

It was a federal government comment saying that the province didn't have the benefit from having consulted more extensively and formally, presumably on a nation-to-nation basis and a land claims jurisdictional basis with First Nations.

Leaving that aside, the question that I want to ask the minister is one where his opinion, I think, would be valuable. Given that Premier Christy Clark absolutely went to the wall to say that the Prosperity mine application was the right one, that it was a disaster to send an investment signal to the rest of the world, that this would have bad repercussions for British Columbia…. She called the federal decision a "dumb decision." She said that it should be fixed in the political backrooms of Ottawa. She said that one of her first priorities, if she were made Premier, would be to go and do that.

Well, now she is Premier, and we don't know what she's doing on this file. But what we do know is that the mine proponent themselves, Taseko, has said: "You know what? It was the wrong application. It was wrong to submit an application that did, in fact, predicate itself on destroying at least two lakes, a number of streams and secondary waterways and, in fact, in the words of Minister Prentice, 'an entire ecosystem.'"

They've resubmitted an application that doesn't involve the destruction of the lake, that actually cost the mine applicant $300 million more but meets the environmental challenges and the bar that the federal environmental assessment put in place.

[1810]

The question I want to ask the minister is: who's right? The federal government and Taseko, on the one hand, who have reached a different conclusion? Or his Premier, Christy Clark, who continues to bang away at this idea that what was approved by the provincial environmental assessment office was the right decision when so clearly it was the wrong decision?

Hon. T. Lake: It's interesting that opposition members make the accusation that the outcome is determined. This Environment critic has said that the new application already meets the bar. In a preliminary de-
[ Page 7212 ]
scription he's already given it a stamp of approval. I find that quite amazing.

What I want to address is the original proposal. Certainly, we identified, through our assessment, harmful environmental effects in terms of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. We recognize that. We worked with the proponent, who said at the time that the $300 million alternative was not economically viable.

The economic conditions changed. With the commodity prices increasing and the economy picking up, particularly demand in China, the proponent perhaps feels that in this economic environment they can meet the alternatives that were discussed through the proposal.

It's not unusual for two jurisdictions to come to two separate conclusions on a particular issue. The NDP party here in British Columbia thinks the HST is a terrible policy. The NDP government in Nova Scotia, however, feels that it's a great economic policy — so not exactly unusual for two jurisdictions to come to two different conclusions.

R. Fleming: Well, I think I should correct the minister, because he may have misheard me and was suggesting that I was characterizing the new application — whatever stage that's in, and it's unclear — as it raises the bar higher. What I was saying was that clearly the provincial and federal governments had reached different conclusions on the first application. The province accepted it. The federal bar was set much higher and utterly rejected it in the most clear terms. So very clearly there was a different bar that was set….

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I did not. Anyway, we can go back through Hansard. The minister is heckling me now on my clarification of my earlier remarks, but that's fine.

I want to ask the minister about something that is currently under review, the Raven underground coal project on the Island here, which is facing an environmental assessment.

Again, there are two processes here. I know the province keeps talking and keeps renewing, on a five-year basis, the intent to discuss with the federal government having a one-process review and doesn't seem to get terribly much further on that — except where they've now, on a couple occasions, delegated authority entirely to the feds, which is not really a shared process.

But in this case, I wanted to ask the minister about the project and get him to comment. Again, it's clear that the federal government is looking at one thing in terms of the application and the provincial government is looking at another.

The federal government is very clearly looking at impacts on salmon habitat, and they have a statutory responsibility to do that, and they're also looking at the port upgrades and the dredging in Port Alberni. The province is not.

The question I would have to this minister is: can he contemplate, because the two authorities are looking at different things, another Taseko-style split decision?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member is quite wrong. In the Raven underground coal project this is, in fact, an example of the most coordinated approach. Both assessment bodies are working together in, as I say, the most coordinated fashion ever.

[1815]

In fact, the public consultation design was recommended by our environmental assessment office and accepted by the Canadian environmental assessment office and is a really good example of how, even in the very early stages of a project application, the system can be designed to ensure that the public consultation phase encourages as many people to be involved as possible.

I mentioned in the House the other day that on March 12 and 13, in Courtenay and Port Alberni, a whole host of different groups were invited to take part in meetings to discuss this project. It's critical that we make sure that everyone is involved that has a perceived interest in this project. We want to do it in a thoughtful way, and we'll continue to do that.

In terms of coordinating the process and having, as the member suggests, different processes, that may be a confusion with the terms of issuing permits versus the environmental assessment process. The issuance of permits, of course, is done by different ministries, by different jurisdictions, once the environmental assessment certificate is awarded — if in fact it were to be.

R. Fleming: The minister characterized the federal and provincial governments on the Raven coal project as working in tandem on all aspects and the scope of the environmental assessment. I want to ask him specifically about salmon habitat and the examination of where impacts may occur, and ask him: is he correct? Is the province actually involved in deploying its own opinion and participating in the impact on salmon in this case?

Hon. T. Lake: We have a working group on this project — which, I want to reiterate, is in the very, very early stages of the application process. That working group includes the federal and provincial governments, as well as First Nations and local government.

At this early stage a big part of the public consultation process is to hear from the public and interested stakeholders what in fact should be included in the scope of the assessment. That working group is listening to that public consultation. That scope will be a result of the public consultation, and the assessment of the eventual scope that is included in the project will be assessed by
[ Page 7213 ]
the working group in a coordinated fashion. That, of course, will include salmon habitat.

R. Fleming: We talked at length about the situation on the Prosperity application, where one level of government concluded that destroying a freshwater body of water, a lake, was acceptable, to be used as a tailing pond. It was a deal-breaker for the other level of government, the federal government. I think it's important that both levels of government, in this case, look at the same hydrological concerns.

My question for the minister is: is the province looking at Cowie Creek, which in the applicant's language is referred to as tributary C1? The applicant has admitted that their project involves partial destruction of Cowie Creek and all of the activity that is involved on that water system. If the province is not looking at Cowie Creek, can he tell the committee why?

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as I mentioned, the working group is working with the public consultation phase, designing a public consultation phase to include all of the interested parties. Our office had a great deal to do with ensuring that all voices were heard on this. I could go through and read all of the groups that were invited to the two-day meetings.

As I mentioned, one of the purposes of the public consultation is to design the scope of the project. If Cowie Creek is part of the scope of the project — I haven't seen the details of the project — and if that is a concern for the working group from the public consultation, then of course it will be assessed in a coordinated fashion with the working group and with the federal and provincial process.

R. Fleming: The minister might have more to add to that — just by the passing of notes there.

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is still yes.

R. Fleming: The answer is still yes. Okay.

Then I will move on to the next question, which is around the transportation arrangement. The applicant wishes to take the coal and transport it by truck to Port Alberni. This is also something that will no doubt receive a lot of comment, and already has — including from the Premier, who yesterday suggested that the Raven coal application would be a great thing for the E&N Railway, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway.

I don't understand the connection between the two, and maybe the minister can enlighten me. The proponent has distinctly not involved using rail as the transportation mode to take the coal from the wash facility at the mine to where it would be loaded on ships in Port Alberni. Maybe the minister could tell me: is this the Premier interfering again in an environmental assessment, making it up as she goes along, or does she know something that we don't know and that hasn't been disclosed yet in the environmental assessment?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question. As I mentioned, we are at a very, very early stage. I certainly understand that there have been those who are proponents of rail as a form of transportation. Certainly, I think most of us would say as a general statement that rail transport has some advantages, in greenhouse gas emissions, versus trucking.

The proponent has stated, as a preferred option, truck transportation to provide the greatest flexibility in meeting volume requirements and that the rail line would require significant rehabilitation to serve as a line for coal haulage. However, Southern Railway and the Island Corridor Foundation are evaluating options for rehabilitating this line to enable that freight service to be provided. The proponent will be asked to look at all options.

D. Donaldson: The minister mentioned earlier a coordinated approach to an environmental assessment review, and I would like to ask him a question regarding the joint review panel that's assessing the Enbridge pipeline project. The province has deferred totally to the joint review panel in this case, and there are many issues.

Even though there are many issues that relate to the pipeline that relate to provincial jurisdiction, the joint review panel consists of three members appointed by the National Energy Board. Two of those members are from Alberta, and one member is from Ontario. Does the minister think that three out-of-province individuals would be the best people to assess a project that crosses over 1,000 kilometres of the province of B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member is referring to a joint review panel. The joint review panel is "joint" in that it involves more than one agency, not more than one jurisdiction. It's a joint review panel of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

[1825]

I will not presuppose the individuals or make any kind of supposition about the individuals that have been appointed to that panel. The members seem to advocate for the joint review panel on one project, and now they are saying that it somehow is not suitable for another project. So I'm a little confused as to where they feel the greatest arbiter of these projects is, but I can say that the B.C. environmental assessment office will be very intimately involved with this process. We will participate, and we will receive regular updates when this project is put through the process.
[ Page 7214 ]

D. Donaldson: I'm sorry the minister is confused. I'll try to alleviate that confusion. None of the National Energy Board members of this panel have experience in reviewing marine oil tanker safety. Even in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline joint review panel…. There were seven members on that panel, and four were from the Northwest Territories. So not having any B.C. representation on this panel is a problem, and the minister doesn't seem to be thinking it's a problem. But to help him through his confusion, I would say that here's the solution to that, and perhaps he can give me his response on whether he thinks that this is a good solution.

I'd advocate for the provincial government to have greater participation in the joint review panel. For instance, public servants could review Enbridge's application. They could comment on it. They could submit new evidence on any things that are relevant issues to the province when it comes to things like sport fishery, big game animals, hunting, guiding, fishing — those are all provincial jurisdiction — and make themselves available for the hearings.

So the intervener status for this joint review panel project…. The deadline is up in mid-July, so would the minister commit today that he will have the province apply to become an intervener status so that we can have our good public servants with their good knowledge of the B.C. land base actually inform this process on behalf of B.C. citizens?

Hon. T. Lake: I think I could be forgiven for being accused of being confused when I hear the federal process being held up as the gold standard for one project and the provincial process being held up as a gold standard for another.

Let me make this clear. We will be a government participant in that process. That means any ministry in the British Columbia government can become a government participant. A government participant allows us to submit information; to ask information requests of other interveners or government participants with prior approval of the panel; to submit evidence in written format; to question the proponent orally at the final hearings; to question other interveners orally at the final hearing; to receive all documents submitted in the joint review process, including notices of motion and related material; to submit notices of motion and participate in processes for notices of motion submitted by other parties; and to submit a final argument.

Our environmental assessment office will be coordinating the participation of the British Columbia government in this process, so I can assure the member that we will be intimately involved to protect the interests of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: But the minister didn't say whether the province would have intervener status or apply for intervener status.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: The member will be happy to know that I, in fact, was correct that we will be a government participant, which actually gives us more access and more rights in the process than an intervener, so I'm sure that he'll be happy with that higher status that we will be taking in this process.

V. Huntington: The minister may know that there has been a recent application or request from Gateway to change the table, alter the table of commitments on the South Fraser perimeter road environmental assessment. I'd just like to ask the minister: to what extent does his office get involved in a request to change the table of commitments?

[1830]

You sign off on the project initially. Do you sign off on changes that are looked at by the environmental assessment office?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you for the question. My understanding is that we have received an application to change some of those commitments that the executive director and their team have…. That is a very recent application. They are reviewing it, and that involves consultation. The executive director has the power to agree to the changes after the consultation or has the power to refer it to the minister.

V. Huntington: That does explain quite a bit. I wonder if the minister could advise what that consultation constitutes.

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding of the process is that…. Again, we are at the very, very early stages. We have a letter from the corporation of Delta in this regard. We haven't had enough time to review the application on the changes. The consultation will be designed after some initial review of what those changes are, and the level of consultation will be designed based on that review.

V. Huntington: Perhaps in that context I could just suggest to the minister that because of the location…. I'm aware of only two sets of changes — whether it be bridges or culverts. They want to change to culverts from bridges. I can tell the minister that that section of the road and those changes will provoke quite a bit of public attention, and I would strongly suggest he discuss things with the executive director and consider some element of public input into the changes.

Hon. T. Lake: I thank the member for the comment and the suggestion and advise that the environmental assessment office at some point, once they've had an
[ Page 7215 ]
opportunity to review this, would be happy to brief the member on it.

V. Huntington: The assessment office will also be receiving a letter from me, hopefully before the strike. It's in the mail, as we say.

I'd also like to ask the minister, given that the executive director is present at the moment…. Gateway has also indicated that in the detailed design phase, in one specific detailed design on the SFPR, they now want to change — I don't want to get into details that would confuse everybody — access to the Vancouver landfill.

To change the access means that over a hectare of lagg of the bog, trees have to come down. This was not part of the table of commitments because the EAO approved of the design on the preliminary design stage.

How does the public input into a decision that changes what the environmental assessment authority was on a preliminary design?

[1835]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member is certainly making the environmental assessment office aware of the concern, so that's one avenue, through their MLA. She's certainly doing that job for her constituents today, and the corporation of Delta has done that. I'm sure, as time goes on, that if it's a significant concern within the public, my office and the environmental assessment office and her office will hear about it.

I don't want to speculate in terms of what the outcome of that is, but I think that all of the usual ways that we hear from our constituents will be used to sort of judge the level of concern, and that will be taken into account when the design of the consultation is put together.

V. Huntington: My concern is that this element of design change was not part of the table of commitments. I'm not entirely sure that Gateway has to come to the environmental assessment office for authority. That's what I'm asking.

If SFPR was approved on the basis of the preliminary design…. Just to step back for one second, Minister, what we're talking about is land adjacent to the Burns Bog conservancy. Just because it isn't in the conservancy doesn't mean that it is a valuable lagg component. Now, Gateway won't call it lagg. The rest of us do call it lagg, and it looks like it may well come down.

I just want to know: is there some sort of process that is real and required of Gateway in this case?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, Member, the proponent does have to come back to the environmental assessment office for changes to the table of commitment. The working group will look at those changes, and the working group does include the corporation of Delta.

V. Huntington: No public input.

Hon. T. Lake: The design of the consultation will be a subject of the working group discussions, which includes Delta.

V. Huntington: I don't know how much further to pursue it, except to say that there is a concern. These are the first two changes that I know of requested in the detailed design phase, Minister. The detailed design could come up with a great many changes to this road, and I would suspect that the environmental assessment office could wisely consider putting in a particular process that deals with what I think will be a number of design changes.

Hon. T. Lake: I think it's safe to say that the environmental assessment office has heard the concerns from the member and from the media that there's public concern out there — and the corporation of Delta, which is part of the working group. The working group, I'm sure, will take that into consideration when they design the level of consultation that's required.

V. Huntington: We've never really seen inside the working group, Minister. It just seems to be another one of those things that exists but nobody knows how it does its business.

I appreciate that, and by the way, I'd like to congratulate the executive director on her appointment. I'm going to miss you terribly at public accounts. I enjoyed sitting near you.

If I could and if there's time to proceed, I would like to ask about the Roberts Bank wildlife management area. Some time ago the former minister indicated that they were looking at designating the wildlife management area but have not yet done so, and I'm wondering why that is.

[1840]

Hon. T. Lake: I am informed this falls under the auspices of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

V. Huntington: The minister has to be kidding. The designation of a wildlife management area is now the responsibility…. Holy cow.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, there has been a reorganization in terms of the management of certain sectors of ministries. The Ministry of Environment works very closely with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. The Ministry of Environment informs and creates policy and often is responsible for legislation.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is charged in a general way with the sort of operational components once the policy is developed. So
[ Page 7216 ]
I am sure that she will have the opportunity to canvass that with the minister at that time, or ask him directly.

V. Huntington: This is very unfortunate, because the canvassing is no longer opportune. I do hope then that the minister, given that he works so closely with the Minister of Natural Resource Operations, will advise the minister that getting on with the designation, such as the designated area actually is, in the matter of fact — will get on with that designation as quickly as possible. A number of people are asking why it hasn't occurred, and I see no reason for it, unless you're waiting for some other massive industrial project to take place within the proposed designated area.

Hon. T. Lake: I will certainly make the member's feelings known to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175