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)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 6

[ Page 7217 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: Good morning. In this House I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Education, and in the Douglas Fir Room I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment.

[1005]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

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

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,980,486,000.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's with great pleasure that I rise to present the 2011-2012 spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are here with me. They are Deputy Minister Philip Steenkamp; Brian Hansen, assistant deputy minister, decision support and accountability division; Mark Gillis, acting assistant deputy minister, students, institutions and programs division; and Joe Thompson, executive director, post-secondary funding.

It's a privilege for me to rise to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the dedicated faculty administrators who plan and deliver post-secondary programs throughout this province. I've had the privilege of meeting many of them as I've toured the province in my new role since becoming Minister of Advanced Education, and I've been very, very impressed by their commitment to learning; their commitment to the students and colleagues, the colleges, universities and institutes that they represent; and their commitment to the post-secondary sector.

We as a government want to make sure that British Columbians have every opportunity to succeed and to be the best that they can. Education is the key to our success in a knowledge-based economy. Investing in post-secondary education has been a priority for this government since 2001, and it continues to be a priority for this government ten years later.

Since 2001, I'm very, very proud to say, we've invested over $2.1 billion in post-secondary education and almost $2.5 billion in student financial assistance. Our priority is to ensure that dollars are kept where they benefit the students the most. We've committed to preserving core funding for our students, and that's what we've been doing.

For 2011 and 2012 we are investing more in post-secondary education than any other provincial government in British Columbia history — $1.98 billion. On average, funding per full-time-equivalent student is $10,000 across institutions. That's up from $8,440 in 2001. Further, we've limited the tuition increases at public institutions to 2 percent per year since 2005.

We continue to take extra steps so that our students can afford a degree or diploma. Any student who applies for student financial assistance and qualifies will receive it, and we're making it easier for our graduates to get out of debt sooner. In 2010-11 the province supported a number of loan forgiveness or reduction programs by investing over $40 million to forgive or reduce loans for more than 23,000 students.

Every student has their own unique journey, and they should be given the opportunity to chart their own course through our post-secondary education system. We want to give our learners the option of what to study, where to study, when to study, how to study and what career path to choose.

[1010]

Since 2001 a $2 billion investment of capital in over 1,000 projects on campuses throughout B.C. has been made to make our post-secondary system more accessible for students, more flexible, more affordable and more competitive with other jurisdictions than ever before.

Our government has created seven new universities and expanded our campus seats by 33,000. These post-secondary opportunities must be made available to all, including our aboriginal learners.

We're working closely with our aboriginal post-secondary education and training partners to create initiatives that eliminate barriers and increase students' participation in social and economic life for their communities, the province and the global society. We will continue to build upon the aboriginal post-secondary education strategy and action plan that this government announced in 2007.

All students can be assured that the learning experience they receive at one of our universities, institutes or colleges will be of the highest standard. Quality is at the heart of our post-secondary education offerings, and it's critical to our competitiveness internationally. B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada with the provincial seal of quality for post-secondary education — our education quality assurance designation. All of our 25 public institutions are now EQA-designated, and 60 private institutions have also received the designation.
[ Page 7218 ]

We're working hard to make sure our province's dynamic post-secondary education system is a global destination of choice for students from all over the world to come here, to learn, to stay, to live, to work and to invest. In addition to the talent and diversity they bring to our education system, labour forces, students and researchers, international students inject more than $1.8 billion per year into B.C.'s economy in tuition, accommodation and discretionary spending, creating about 22,000 jobs.

We will continue to work in partnership with British Columbia's post-secondary education and training institutions to ensure that our programs attract, accommodate and retain students from all over British Columbia and around the world. I'm very proud of the progress we've been making as we strive to make sure British Columbians and learners from around the world are able to develop the knowledge and skills they need to reach their full potential.

We've increased annual funding for the university sector by 56 percent since 2001 and by 25 percent for our colleges and institutes. There are over 440,000 full- and part-time students enrolled in public post-secondary institutions in B.C. That's the highest number ever. There have been 330 new degree programs approved in B.C. since 2001.

We have made significant progress, but we can't and we won't stop now. We're facing an entirely new global economy. The world is changing, technology is changing, and jobs are changing.

Over the next ten years three-quarters of all the jobs in B.C. will require some form of post-secondary education or training. To keep ahead of the curve, we need to produce the best-educated and best-trained students, and we need to continue supporting students and educational institutions that develop them.

We will continue to invest in our young people and make it easier for them to invest in themselves. We will continue to provide learning opportunities to help people reach for their dreams and enrich their lives, their families and their communities.

I know you have some ideas on how we can achieve these goals and how we can pay for them. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and answering your questions. I would be happy to receive comments, remarks and questions from the members of the Legislature.

M. Mungall: Well, it's my pleasure to be able to participate in the budget estimates debates today for Advanced Education. I was about to say "and Labour Market Development," but not quite anymore. We've had a few changes in the last year.

The government describes, and rightly so, the activities and the programs that it has been taking on since it was elected in 2001. Their numbers paint one story. Of course, when we broaden it out and look beyond just their numbers and look at the stories of students and families across this province, we see a more fulsome picture, and that picture is not as rosy as the one they continually paint.

What we do see in this province is, of course, one of the highest debt loads for students, at $27,000, after their graduating. You add interest rates, the highest interest rates in the country, on top of that, and they're actually paying $35,000 when all is said and done, at the very least. And that's the average student.

We also have some of the highest tuition in the province. We have the lowest amount for upfront student grants from this provincial government than any other province in the country.

[1015]

What we see is stagnant funding going to post-secondary institutions. When I say stagnant…. They might say, "Oh, we have increased," but the reality is that the costs for institutions have also increased. So when you look at everything, when all is said and done at the end of the day, we actually see an 8 percent decline in per-student funding in this province. That's the fact of the matter. That's what post-secondary institutions are saying.

It certainly is not the same type of picture that the provincial government continually portrays when it comes to Advanced Education. They claim that this is a priority for them, but of course, actions speak louder than words.

With that, I'd like to be able to jump right into questions. We don't have much time today for what is a very large issue for over 200,000 students and families across this province, so I'm going to get started going right to the estimates documents.

It's actually under line item 67 in the supplements to estimates. Line item 67, under "Corporate services," we see that there's just over $1.5 million being spent here. Now, this item is for what's considered non-statutory advertising and publishing. Line item 68 is the statutory. That's what's required of government to do.

I thought that was quite a discrepancy, so I started to flip through the rest of the supplementary estimates document to see what's going on in other ministries, just for a comparison. I actually found that this is not a popular line item, No. 67. Very rarely do you ever see anything in it.

The other places that you see something in this line item are climate action secretariat, tourism, government and public engagement, where you can understand why you would see funding in those areas. But I don't understand why we're seeing it in corporate services here in Advanced Education. So I'm just wondering what this money is for and how you came to this total.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Due to the reorganization of the ministries that were combined into what we see
[ Page 7219 ]
now as Advanced Education, we saw some funding that actually ended up in our ministry. So any spending on government informational advertising and publications will be planned and coordinated centrally through the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

M. Mungall: I don't see how that answers my question. Obviously, if this money is being budgeted into this ministry, this ministry is going to be spending it. To talk about it being given to another ministry…. I don't quite understand. Why wouldn't it be in that other ministry?

I'm wondering: what is this money for, and under which department of the ministry is it being spent? I mean, we have it in corporate services, but when I met with the deputy minister, he was mentioning that for what's been categorized in terms of the organization of the ministry, technology and business solutions branch is corporate services. So if there's anything else rolled into corporate services under this budget item here…. Why would you be spending $1.5 million on advertising?

[1020]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This money came from a former ministry and is now in Advanced Education. It is for areas of advertising and publication, as I think you recognized. But in order for us to spend it, we will actually be coordinating it through the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

At this time some of the projects that we would consider spending this money on would include marketing and promoting B.C.'s post-secondary institutions to international students. We could consider spending it on publishing our student satisfaction survey or perhaps marketing and rolling out our new integrated system for our StudentAid B.C.

M. Mungall: Thank you, hon. Speaker, or Chair. It's going to take a while, maybe all morning, for me to get that straight in this room.

My understanding, looking at the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, CMEC…. They do a lot of marketing for international students. What I'm wondering is: are we doubling up? Are they already doing that marketing to international students? We pay into being a part of that organization, so are we essentially just doubling up something that they're already doing?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That's a very good question. We always want to make sure that we're not…. We want to eliminate duplication, but the CMEC, as you referred to, actually doesn't have a marketing budget for international education. It's up to the provinces to do it on their own.

M. Mungall: Moving on, then, to looking at the funding of the institutions and FTEs, and so on. We'll start diving into that.

I want to first look at the possibility of the higher-education price index and pulling a lot from presentations that have been done to the Finance Committee. In their prebudget submission to the Finance Committee this year CUFABC, which is the Canadian university faculty Association — there are so many acronyms; I'm hoping I got that one right — recommended that the Ministry of Advanced Education and Ministry of Finance start working together to develop a B.C. higher-education price index, HEPI.

That presentation was done this year, but it was also done in the previous years and was a recommendation of the Finance Committee. Specifically, the recommendation from the 2009 report reads: "Investigate the merits of and issues related to using the higher-education price index model versus the consumer price index in regard to post-secondary funding allocation adjustments."

The United States uses HEPI, and it's proven to be quite useful, especially noting that since about 1987 HEPI has been considerably higher than the CPI. So I'm just wondering if the ministry has begun this work.

[1025]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We actually have looked at HEPI. What we've determined is that if you look over the past few years, HEPI index is very volatile and it lacks a lot of certainty. In fact, if we tied our increase, the 2 percent increase of tuition year over year, to HEPI, it would actually be a larger increase than we do currently have when we link it to CPI.

M. Mungall: That was exactly my point. HEPI has increased at a steady pace, much faster and much higher than the CPI. So of course, you would have to be looking at increasing funding to post-secondary education. That's exactly the point.

The reason why HEPI exists in the first place is that the basket of goods for post-secondary education is not the same as the basket of goods for your average person, which is what determines the CPI.

What determines HEPI is very specific to post-secondary education. Its volatility in the United States…. I don't know if we could really say that, because it seems to be quite consistent as it increases, and there hasn't been a consistent change in terms of the basket of goods for post-secondary institutions that determine HEPI. To me, I would really encourage the ministry to go back and review this work because it is a very useful tool for our neighbours just to the south.

Moving along, then. Looking at the generally accepted accounting principles — again, a major issue this year at the Finance Committee. Actually, it's not just this year but for several years. Institutions have been talking
[ Page 7220 ]
about GAAP, having been brought in to what is called the general reporting entity of British Columbia, of the province. Of course, it has really constrained their ability to go out and do fundraising.

They've made recommendations to the Finance Committee, which the Finance Committee then adopted this year.

The report reads: "Urgently review the application of generally accepted accounting principles to universities and colleges, since existing policy is denying post-secondary institutions the opportunity to access outside capital, in particular for programs and infrastructure that are typically not funded by government."

Last year's report read: "Examine the unintended consequences of the application of generally accepted accounting principles."

Those recommendations have been in there two years running now. In fact, we heard something last spring in the Speech from the Throne to this effect.

The Speech from the Throne in 2010 said specifically:

"Improvements will be launched in advanced education as well. Legislation will be introduced enabling our universities to remove themselves from the government reporting entity. We cannot let accounting policies stand in the way of our students' interests or hold our universities back from pursuing their unique areas of excellence in partnership with others."

Now, that legislation did not come forward last spring. It did not come forward in the fall. We didn't even sit in the fall. It doesn't seem like it's coming forward this spring.

Has the ministry done this review of the recommendations — two years running now, at the very least — from the Finance Committee? If so, when will legislation, as previously committed by the B.C. Liberal government, be forthcoming?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite does raise an important issue. That's why, actually, government and…. There's a government and sector implementation planning process that's underway currently, as you indicated. The Ministry of Advanced Education and the office of the comptroller general are working with the post-secondary institutions in support of a successful implementation of GAAP for this sector.

[1030]

To facilitate this transition, a task force has been identified, which you recognize, to present options to a steering committee in the coming weeks. The task force, for your information, does include several institutions: College of the Rockies, Okanagan College, Douglas College, SFU, UBC, University of the Fraser Valley, UVic and Vancouver Island University.

There's also a steering committee that's made up of associations that represent these institutions, which is the Research Universities of B.C., BCAIU, B.C. Colleges and the office of the comptroller general.

This is under active consideration right now, and they will be reporting out shortly.

M. Mungall: I very much look forward to hearing that report, especially since this has been a longstanding advocacy point from B.C.'s institutions.

On to the annual capital allowance. The annual capital allowance to institutions was cut by 74 percent in the September 2009 budget, then again last year. This brings us to a total cut of 78 percent since the 2009 budget.

Presentations again to the Finance Committee this year spoke to that. I just want to highlight a few of the phrases that we were left with, being a member of the Select Standing Finance Committee. These are a few of the phrases we were left with.

First is Marilyn Luscombe from Selkirk College at the Castlegar public hearing. She noted: "Government needs to start to restore the annual capital allowance back to pre-2009 levels. Our aging infrastructures require care and attention to remain viable."

Peter Lockie from Camosun College also noted: "We use it to maintain our infrastructure. So deferring maintenance can be done in the short term, but in the long term we'll just build up problems which will be even more expensive to fix."

The Finance Committee heard this and agreed and recommended that the ministry start to restore the annual capital allowance allocation for post-secondary institutions back to 2009 levels. My question is: what are the ministry's plans for the annual capital allowance?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The annual capital allowance, or the ACA, remains at $12.6 million for '11-12. This is part of our government's plan to achieve a balanced budget by 2013-14.

But let me remind the member opposite that the B.C. institutions continue to benefit from the largest post-secondary expansion in this province's history. Since 2001 we've invested over $2 billion — in fact, $2.09 billion — in capital funding for 1,000 capital projects in our institutions around the province. On top of that, every single institution in B.C. received funding through the knowledge infrastructure program for upgrades, renovations and new buildings and maintenance projects.

In fiscal 2010 the ministry initiated the facilities condition assessment project. I think this is what the member opposite was asking about. This is a database that will be used as a tool in determining priority projects for funding to address the backlog of deferred maintenance.

M. Mungall: I think the important note here, though, is from institutions who are making the distinction between major capital projects, new builds…. Some of those have been funded by the knowledge information program, KIP, that the minister mentioned. There's a difference between that and just the day-to-day maintenance. If you can't keep up with the day-to-day
[ Page 7221 ]
maintenance, it just comes back to bite you later on down the road, and it bites with a much, much bigger line item or much bigger dollar figure.

[1035]

Just as an example here — TRU's capital needs. They are saying that officials have identified about $6 million of upgrades that will be needed in coming years, but they're only getting $655,000. That's a huge discrepancy, and it really highlights the extent to which the ACA is underfunded.

Going back to the minister…. Actually, before I do that, I should also highlight that TRU is not alone. Of course, there are Royal Roads University, UBC and UVic campuses that have heritage buildings. They desperately need this type of funding to maintain the heritage buildings for the benefit of not just students and faculty but the entire province as a whole, to retain our heritage architecture.

So again, just going back to the minister, if she can please explain why the ministry has, then, rejected the recommendation from the Finance Committee, which of course, is a recommendation based on public consultation with over 3,000 British Columbians.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite does raise an important issue. We are very aware of this, which is why I'll remind the member opposite why we launched the facilities condition assessment project. And just for the member opposite's information, since 2000 we've actually invested $636 million in what you were mentioning — the annual capital allowance.

For the member opposite's information, planning is a cycle. We're looking at what we're going to be requiring in terms of the deferred maintenance. This project that we're undertaking will actually give us a list of the priority areas that need to be addressed so that in the next cycle of ACA, we'll be able to identify those priority areas and address them.

B. Ralston: I have a question that relates to the capital budget for Simon Fraser University's Surrey campus. If I might briefly set a context. The minister will recall that in the '90s a prize-winning tower, Surrey Central City tower was built there with the intention to house, among other things, the Technical University. The architect for that award-winning tower was Bing Thom. Since then SFU has taken over the university operation there and built steadily to the allotted capacity.

The minister will be aware that in the South Fraser region the percentage of, if I can put it, university-bound or university-eligible students after high school is one of the lowest participation rates, regionally, in the province. Studies show that the closer an advanced education facility is to the homes of those people, the more likely they are to participate. Obviously, Kwantlen Polytechnic University participates in servicing this area, as do some of the colleges as well. I'm interested, in particular, in the Surrey city centre.

The minister will know that since then, using the principle of public investment to catalyze private investment, there's been considerable activity in the city centre. I recently attended a groundbreaking for a property, a 40-storey tower. The developers are WestStone Properties. It's close to the city centre.

[1040]

The city of Surrey itself has a developed plan for the city centre, including a $50 million investment in a new city hall and a new Surrey central library, again designed by Bing Thom.

So there is a plan to develop the centre. The university is an important part of that plan. Both previous president Michael Stevenson and the current president, Andrew Petter, have I think politely yet persistently lobbied the government and suggested that the 5,000 full-time-equivalent student capacity of the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University is not sufficient to meet the long-term demand.

My first question is…. A commitment was made to supply the capital to enable the university to reach that 5,000-student threshold. My further question is: what commitment is the government prepared to make, given that the planning conditions, the commitment by other levels of government, by private investment are all there to create a vibrant city centre of which an expanded university would be an important part? What is the long-term commitment of the government on the capital side to raise the full-time-equivalent capacity of this campus of Simon Fraser University to what I think would be more adequate, which would be something in the range of 15,000 students?

The commitment has been made to get to the 5,000, although I think recent entreaties from the current president have suggested that that may be a bit slow in coming. Could the minister provide some assurance there, and secondly, what is the long-term plan?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite does make some very good points. I agree that the Surrey SFU campus is an important area that we should be looking at, especially in light of the rapid growth that the Surrey area has seen.

I would like to remind the member opposite that this government has made a significant contribution to the SFU Surrey campus — in fact, a contribution of over $80 million since 2001. This includes $5.3 million for Podium and then another additional $6.25 million for space for Podium 2. The actual Surrey campus initial investment was almost $70 million.

Since 2005-06 we have added more than 7,000 student spaces in the Boundary–Fraser Valley region, and there are over 58,000 spaces at the six institutions within that region.
[ Page 7222 ]

B. Ralston: I was more interested in less of a retrospective analysis than a forward-looking analysis.

[1045]

What the president of Simon Fraser has told the community in public meetings is that he is actively pursuing further funding to enable the commitments that have been made in the present plan to be realized, to get the capacity at SFU Surrey to the predicted 5,000 FTEs.

Can the minister, here in this House, provide assurance to Simon Fraser University and to the community in north Surrey that that commitment is going to be honoured and the capital funds necessary to achieve the capital plan that the university has presented to the ministry will be achieved? That's the first question.

Second question is…. What SFU says, and I'm quoting from their document — the draft five-year capital plan: "Without expansion of the Surrey campus, qualified students from the immediate area intending to enrol at SFU Surrey will not be able to be accommodated at this campus."

So there's a demand there. It's very clear. I'm sure the ministry acknowledges that. The administration of Simon Fraser University is rightly concerned that that demand may not be able to be met. Given what I know that certainly the deputy minister is aware of — the labour market demand for skilled graduates of all types in the labour market of the future here in British Columbia — one would think that that would naturally be a priority.

I'm concerned about the government's short-term commitment, and I'm concerned about the government's long-term commitment to Simon Fraser University Surrey. I'm wondering if the minister here, publicly, can provide me with that assurance.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member is right. This is a rapidly growing area. Right now we have 2,500 student spaces at the SFU Surrey campus, and we will be continuing to work with SFU Surrey to ensure that we can meet the future demands.

I'd like to mention to the member opposite that just yesterday afternoon, late afternoon, I was on the phone with the president of SFU, and we talked about this very item. So I can tell the member opposite that we do have a long-term commitment to address the needs of the Surrey area.

One of the issues that we were working on was trying to assemble some real estate around the Surrey campus that currently exists, and we have helped SFU Surrey do that. There are actually some parking lots that we've purchased and assembled into a package for future expansion. So when we have the capacity, we will be addressing the needs of Surrey.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm not surprised that the president of SFU was on the phone. I know he's a very concerned and persistent but polite lobbyist on this front. When does the minister anticipate reaching the 5,000…? And this is a very intermediate step — the 5,000 full-time-equivalent student capacity that's been promised. I guess the concern is: when is the capital going to flow to realize that promise?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We are in the middle of a capital planning project right now. It's underway right now with respect to Surrey's needs and the rest of the province, but I can assure the member opposite: this is a top priority for me.

[1050]

I have heard it loud and clear from the president of SFU. We will do what we can to work together to achieve the goals that this province, this government and SFU are looking forward to completing.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister about Vancouver Island University, which has campuses adjacent to both ends of my constituency. Many students live in my constituency, and their families are affected by a situation that has occurred there.

There was recently a strike, and the dispute was obviously fuelled by a perception of a lack of funding. The students, the faculty and the administration all agree that funding has been inadequate from the province, that the transition to university status was never properly funded and that they are facing continued declines in their ability to provide the programming that has been advertised. In fact, since the strike, their enrolment has declined.

I wonder if the minister can offer any hope to Vancouver Island University that their funding might at least meet the demands that were imposed on the university when the B.C. Liberal government created a university out of a college but failed to fund that transition.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We are providing Vancouver Island University with over $50 million in operating grants in 2011-12, and that grant has been stable. We have increased the operating funding to Vancouver Island University by almost 40 percent since 2001. We've also invested over $40 million in capital projects at the university since 2001. But I do recognize the challenges that Vancouver Island University is facing. They're doing a great job managing these challenges. I know it's a difficult situation for them, but I'm confident that the administration, the faculty and the staff are working in the best interests of the students to succeed.

Just an information note. I think that Vancouver Island University is looking forward to the opportunity to access the additional funding that's available for health seats and for skills seats that we offer.

D. Routley: Environmental issues are a concern for all government institutions, and there's an effort to
[ Page 7223 ]
make our institutions carbon-neutral. One of the elements that I don't think is very often well considered is the issue of drinking water.

[1055]

At Vancouver Island University there's an effort underway to ban the bottle — to ban the sale of bottled water. Six out of ten plastic bottles are not recycled. This in Canada equates to 15 million barrels of oil being wasted in the production of bottles that are never recycled. The students at Vancouver Island University are intent on ridding their campus of these plastic bottles and encouraging students to use drinking fountains.

But most of the capital projects that the minister has spoken about do not include drinking fountains. There are very few drinking fountains on the campus, so one of their efforts is to encourage the university and the government to invest in projects that would increase the number of drinking fountains available to students.

Does the minister support that effort, and can she offer the students any hope that the government might find a way to resource their effort?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I also share the Vancouver Island University students' need to ensure that we are sensitive to some of the things that we do unintentionally to our environment or our planet. In this case, the production of the plastic water bottles is quite a concern.

In fact, for the member opposite's information, I was considered a LiveSmart hero, and one of the things that I did…. I think this was the B.C. Hydro project. I said that I would actually reduce the amount of times that I would drink out of a plastic water bottle. It is challenging to find a water fountain. In fact, even in this building I'm not even sure the water coming out of the taps is actually that good to drink.

I do know that the institutions do prioritize their issues on campus. If the institution determines that having more drinking fountains is a priority, they can access the ACA funds to accommodate this. But I do agree that we should be looking at the amount of water bottles that we see produced.

L. Krog: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question here this morning, knowing that our time is very limited. In particular, I want to ask this on behalf of my colleague, who has already spoken, from Nanaimo–North Cowichan; my colleagues from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Alberni–Pacific Rim; and others who have great concern about the state of Vancouver Island University.

As the minister well knows, the university went through a very difficult strike. One of the more awful results is that wages were paid out, but now refunds have been granted to students who applied for a refund of tuition. The minister well knows that notwithstanding what she talks about in terms of increases in the grants, the moneys going to VIU and the grant being stable, the fact is that costs are rising.

VIU faces enormous financial difficulty, and this strike has been an incredible burden placed upon that institution. It's an institution that is a source of great pride in my community. The main campus of VIU is in my constituency. They are now faced with the prospect of even cancelling something as innovative and important as the green building program.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

My question to the minister this morning is: given the unique circumstances that this is the one institution in this country that has recently faced a strike, given that they have had to refund tuition, and given that they're already cut to the bone in every aspect of the operation there — and the minister herself has complimented the administration and staff and faculty who have done their best — is this government prepared to provide further funding to VIU to meet this extraordinary fiscal difficulty that they face arising out of the strike?

If the minister is not, what it means is that the green building program and other programs are going to disappear — things that are important, things that have made VIU a leader. Given the incredible work they've placed on attracting international students…. I think the minister is well aware that, in terms of international education, if you see it as an export because it brings money into the province…. I understand through numbers recited by the former head of WorkSafe B.C., a leading economist, that it exceeds the value of the forest industry in the province of British Columbia.

[1100]

So it is important. VIU is important. I want to hear from this minister this morning that the government is prepared to put up some more money to ensure that these kinds of cuts don't occur.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I do share the concern that the member opposite expressed, particularly the negative impact that the strike had on the students that were attending Vancouver Island University. I can say, though, that we have been working very closely with the administration and staff at Vancouver Island University to assess the financial implications of this strike.

While it's true that Vancouver Island University is reimbursing tuition costs to some of the students during the strike, Vancouver Island University did not pay instructors during that strike. I have the authority, and I've given the authority to Vancouver Island University to allow the savings that were accrued during the strike to offset the costs of the strike and to refund student tuitions where it was required.

It will take a little while to determine the actual net impact that the strike had on the institution, which is
[ Page 7224 ]
why we're working very closely with them. I have absolute confidence that the administration and staff are working to resolve any issues outstanding.

You did mention something about international students. I want to say that I agree with you that international students are a hugely important segment of our economy, in fact a huge contributor to our GDP. Vancouver Island University is actually a leader in this. We will be working very closely with them to ensure that there were no residual damages that have occurred because of the strike.

D. Donaldson: First, congratulations to the minister for her newly appointed role as Minister of Advanced Education. It's good to see the staff here supporting you.

I have a question around a couple of items. Northern Lights College provides programming in the northeast part of the province for thousands of students. In fact, up until a year ago they also provided programming for two of the communities in my constituency as well, Dease Lake and Atlin.

As the minister is well aware, in 2009 the B.C. Liberals cut grant programs by $17 million and reduced the actual number of grants. That was in 2009 — $17 million. Coincidentally, not very long afterwards, in fact in May of 2010, Northern Lights College removed their programming services from both Dease Lake and Atlin. A reasonable thinking person would be able to make the connection, the reasonable link between the fact that grants weren't available for students and Northern Lights College having to remove these services because of a lack of students in the programming.

[1105]

Northwest Community College is prepared to take up the gap and provide programming in Dease Lake. They are well-suited to that role. Their School of Exploration and Mining just won an award yesterday as part of B.C. Mining Week. They won the Mining and Sustainability Award from the Mining Association of B.C. But they have not been provided funding by the Ministry of Advanced Education to put programming services into Dease Lake.

Now, the minister likely knows that the mining opportunities are incredible in that area. It's unacceptable that a post-secondary training institute does not have a presence in a core area for where that mining is going to occur.

Local people and their families need to have the best chance to take advantage of the opportunities in their own backyard. By this government not providing the post-secondary training facility in Dease Lake, it removes that opportunity from those families and from those people.

I have a letter here that I wrote to the previous minister on May 5 of last year, over a year ago, outlining the concerns. I met with the previous minister at the UBCM last September along with the Kitimat-Stikine regional district, which voiced those concerns as well.

The gap has meant that there was no post-secondary programming from a college in Dease Lake last fall, this winter and this spring, and now the worry is, again, this coming fall.

I have two questions for the minister. First, will you commit to provide the resources to Northwest Community College to deliver programming to Dease Lake in this year's budget? Secondly, on the grants issue, why have you failed, once again, to provide an adequate, financial needs–based, upfront grants system in this year's budget?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I did have the opportunity to visit Northwest Community College. In fact, I think they were the first college that I visited in my new role as Advanced Education Minister. I was really pleased to meet the new president, Dr. Henning, who has taken over the helm. I see great things happening in that area.

Should Northern Lights wish to transfer their responsibilities to Northwest Community College, with that transfer of responsibilities will come a transfer of funding. So the funding will go from Northern Lights to Northwest Community College, if they wish to do that.

[1110]

Both colleges actually have new presidents. I have just mentioned that I've met one of them, and they're in discussions about program delivery in that area. That's good to see. The new presidents of Northern Lights College and Northwest Community College and officials from my ministry will be going to Dease Lake and Atlin in July to hear about the educational needs in that area from the communities, from the people themselves.

In the meantime, my staff are working under the labour market partnership program, which is responding to community-based proposals to develop a comprehensive human resource strategy for the northwest. The reason why I mention this is because this is where the opportunity is for additional funding.

Just going back to Northern Lights College at the Atlin campus and at Dease Lake, they have actually made their facilities available to providers, including the B.C. Aboriginal Mine Training Association — and I mention this because you do recognize this is an area that is important to mining; the Provincial Court of B.C.; and Yukon College.

In addition, Northwest Community College is working with B.C. Hydro, delivering entry-level training in various First Nation communities along the proposed northwest transmission line. So they are responding to needs of the labour market and the business community there.
[ Page 7225 ]

M. Mungall: I just want to turn the direction to FTEs. I was noting from a press release that was sent out by the B.C. Federation of Post-Secondary Educators that while there's a slight increase to operating grants, which we know, there's actually about 3,000 fewer FTE students in the coming year. I want to know from the minister if this projection, first, is accurate. Also, have post-secondary seats been cut for this year?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm going to read these numbers out, because I can understand the confusion.

[1115]

You're asking me about the apparent decrease in about 3,000 student spaces from 2010-11 to the 2011-12 target. In years of high demand such as 2010-2011 saw, some institutions were actually able to exceed their student intake above the ministry target. So while student forecasts for 2010-2011 is over 205,000 spaces, the ministry target is 203,401 spaces. This means that institutions are forecasting delivery of about 1,600 student spaces more than our target. That's one point.

The difference between the 2010-11 target of 203,401 spaces and the 2011-12 target of 201,792 spaces, which is that apparent reduction of about 1,600 spaces…. This really reflects the estimated reduction in the trades-training activity, which is funded by ITA in public institutions and which accounts for 1,894 spaces.

What happens is that this reduction is offset by a planned increase in new student spaces by 285. So in the end the system is growing by 285 spaces. That's the actual net growth.

I can go over that again, because I actually have to write it out by hand myself. It makes sense when you see it in writing, but it has to do with the overachievement from 2010 and the targeted spaces we have for 2011-2012. But there's an overall growth of 285 seats. We'll send it to you in writing.

M. Mungall: Please do send that to me in writing; that will be fantastic. Of course, hearing numbers and then seeing them on paper are two very different ways of understanding them.

I did hear you say that there's a target FTE that the ministry has and that schools have, in the past, exceeded that target. I'm just wondering: are those seats that exceed the target still funded?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The simple answer to your question is no. We don't fund the additional seats that institutions may actually achieve. But we do see that some institutions exceed the capacity and some don't. In the end it balances out. But for those institutions that actually do exceed their targets, they're able to do that because they realize economies of scale, and the incremental extra seats that they're able to have in their institutions isn't as large of a cost.

M. Mungall: So the ministry isn't funding them. It sounds like the minister is saying that they're able to fund them with existing internal funds. Am I hearing that right?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The answer to your question is yes. If you can imagine a classroom, and there is a need for a student to enter a class which actually puts them over the top for the number of students that it's predicted to have, there isn't really that much more of a cost to have that extra student in that class. That's how the institutions manage it. But on the flip side, if an institution actually doesn't meet its capacity or its target, we don't take away funding either.

[1120]

M. Karagianis: I'd like to ask a very specific question about Royal Roads University. As the minister may be aware, the very unique aspects of what the university offers in the way of courses — entrepreneurialism, business management, environment and sustainability, leadership, tourism and hospitality…. They are all very specific and timely courses that are offered in the current economy and are quite vital to the current economy. Most often this is for students who are pursuing something slightly past the initial post-secondary education courses they may take.

I'm very concerned by the student grant programs, which have been diminished over the last number of years since 2001 quite significantly. I'm wondering now, looking at the criteria for student grants, why there has been no effort made to ensure that students who are pursuing things like environment and sustainability have equal access to grants.

Most of the grants look to me to be very constrained to a very specific demographic — students with disabilities, etc. Yet this is such a vital and key part of an economy and the future economy that I'm disappointed that there are not more eligibility opportunities for students at Royal Roads.

Could the minister elaborate on why the grants are so constrained and what other options are available for students to take part in these economic future-forward opportunities and courses that are really important to the future of the economy of this region and of the whole province?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I do agree with the member opposite. You know, I would like to take a look at the eligibility criteria of our students. We are delivering post-secondary education now in so many different ways that we never imagined ten or 15 years ago, including on-line training and students going to school part-time. I will take a look at the eligibility criteria for student loans for our students, especially those ones that are attending Royal Roads University and on-line courses.
[ Page 7226 ]

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if the minister can give us a broad overview of some of the post-secondary enrolment trends in B.C.

[1125]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Again, these will be numbers that I'm reading out to you, and I'd be pleased to provide them to you later. If we're talking about FTEs in our public post-secondary system, we're looking at an increase. I'm just going to go back the last three years.

In 2007-2008 we were seeing 186,749 FTEs; the year following we were seeing 195,317 FTEs; and then last year, 203,896 FTEs. Then if we go by head count, because that's actually sometimes more relevant for me than FTEs, we were looking at 443,215 in 2007-08; the year following, an increase to 458,815; then last year, 465,035. That's head count.

Another stat that you might be interested in is our credentials. In 2007 we saw 52,730, in 2008 we saw 54,595, and then in 2009 we saw 55,500.

M. Mungall: Let's get away from all these numbers just for a bit. Just looking at private institutions, specifically let's start with the EQA, education quality assurance. Can the minister provide details of the revenues and expenses of the EQA board with respect to the applications from private and out-of-province institutions?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would like to get back to the member opposite with that information after the break.

M. Mungall: That's fine.

Then I was looking at the Watson report. They have 13 recommendations that were delivered in that report in 2008. It's been three years. I'm just wondering why the ministry continues to ignore the report on private post-secondary schools. I can't find a single thing that looks like a recommendation has been implemented, other than the EQA, which was announced the same time the recommendations came out. So it's hard to say whether that was actually following any of the recommendations.

[1130]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Could the member opposite indicate what the 13 recommendations from the Watson report are that she was referring to?

M. Mungall: This is a report that was commissioned by the B.C. Liberal government. They should have access to that report. They should know these recommendations. Is the minister saying that she is completely unfamiliar with a report that was crucial to the private post-secondary schools and protecting students?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I was asking which recommendations the member opposite is referring to.

M. Mungall: All 13 of them.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There were actually 16 formal recommendations made. So when I asked the member opposite what 13 she was referring to, I think I was a little confused. But I'm pleased to report that almost half of those 16 recommendations were either in whole or in part implemented, and there were only five recommendations at that time for which implementation was not considered.

M. Mungall: Well, in the report it does…. You can tally it off as 16, but in the report there are actually 13 sections. Some of them have — like recommendation 11 — an (a) and a (b) component to them. That's just a matter of semantics — the 16 versus 13.

Now, the minister has said that almost half have been implemented either in whole or in part. Can she please elaborate on that so we have some more specifics around what kind of implementation has been done to date?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I will go through this. I would be happy to provide the member opposite with a copy of it, because it's rather lengthy.

Recommendation 1(a) was to implement "a more rigorous registration process that includes educational standards." The actions taken were: basic education standards for registered institutions implemented. It was effective June 1, 2009, and that became Bill 43.

Recommendation 1(b) was to "replace voluntary accreditation with mandatory outcomes-based quality assurance…."The action taken: the accreditation remains voluntary, but it will become outcomes-based effective June 1, 2009.

Recommendation 2: "Create a charter of student rights and responsibilities" and "implement a student complaint system based on that charter." The student charter is being considered but not being developed at this time. Legislative amendments to provide for a student complaint mechanism and timely financial redress for students that have been purposely misled by institutions will come into force June 1, 2009. Again, that was Bill 43.

[1135]

Recommendation 3. That recommendation was to keep regulatory functions with PCTIA, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency. That recommendation was accepted. That was status quo, so no action was required there.

Recommendation 4. The act should also cover academic programs below the associate degree level. This recommendation was not implemented. The option is for schools offering these programs to voluntarily register.
[ Page 7227 ]

Recommendation 5. Reregulation of English-as-a-second language, or ESL, school. The recommendation was not implemented. The option is for schools offering these programs to voluntarily register.

Recommendation 6(a). Move to a fully appointed rather than elected board with a majority of public interest, as opposed to industry, members. This was partially implemented effective November 27, 2008. The PCTIA board permanently is comprised of seven elected industry members and three public interest members. Again, that was Bill 43.

Recommendation 6(b). Restructure fees and charges to reduce STCF contributions, ensure costs of operating the agency are borne fairly by institutions, ensure PCTIA operations are adequately funded and charge back costs to new and non-compliant institutions rather than to all institutions in that sector. STCF contributions have been amended to reduce contributions for institutions with a history of compliance. PCTIA fees are also being restructured, effective June 1, 2009, to level the playing field between large and small institutions and reward institutions with a history of compliance.

Recommendation 7. Increase deterrence to non-compliance by expanding offences listed in the act; strengthening independence of registrar, allowing for progressive discipline, including fines and penalties and allowing the registrar to limit the activities of non-compliant institutions. This recommendation was not implemented. An approach of rewarding compliant institutions was taken instead.

Recommendation 8: "Expand the use of regulations and bylaws and…implement existing authority to establish classes of institutions…to provide for greater flexibility in the area of fees, quality assurance and enforcement." Expanding use of regulations and bylaws was not implemented. It's inconsistent with current government direction. Classes and institutions established for new fee structure and potential for these provisions to be used for other purposes.

Recommendation 9. Require schools that admit international students to be subject to a high level of oversight. This was not implemented.

Recommendation 10. Streamline DAA and PCTIA acts. This longer-term item requires considerable work and analysis.

Recommendation 11(a). Require institutions to self-report non-compliance. This was not implemented, as legislative change was required.

Recommendation 11(b). PCTIA should give performance guarantees with respect to processing times for various documents. This was not implemented. It relates to the internal workings of PCTIA. A shareholder's letter of expectations between the ministry and PCTIA has been developed, and one of the items included is for PCTIA to continue to review and improve their activities to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.

Recommendation 12(a): "PCTIA should conduct periodic reviews of its activities." A shareholder's letter of expectations between the ministry and PCTIA has been developed and includes the following actions: improve public awareness and understanding of the agency's processes and roles; enhance data collections to support production of an annual institution enrolment report to be published on the agency's website by June 1 each year; and continually review and improve PCTIA's activities to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.

[1140]

Recommendation 12(d) — but it could be 12 (a). No recommendations related to (b) and (c). The Minister should have greater powers, including approving PCTIA bylaws, and increased scope for use of regulations. This was not implemented. The minister's current powers to direct changes to bylaws or require new ones are greater than the recommendations that the minister approve bylaws.

Then, finally, recommendation 13: "Engage with aboriginal institutions and organizations about ways to help them strengthen and sustain their post-secondary" education.

This is a longer-term item, and work needs to be done — to be considered in context with initiatives such as the aboriginal forums and the ministry's policy work with First Nations Education Steering Committee and the post-secondary MOU partners' table regarding the role of aboriginal institutions.

I have this document, and I can provide that to you later.

M. Mungall: Yes, I would very much like a copy of that.

Just going back, though, to recommendation 9. I thought that was very interesting for the minister to say that that has not been implemented. That concerns me because one of the issues that drove the government to commission this report was actually complaints by both the Chinese and the Indian consulates around essentially — my understanding is — fraud of students coming from those respective countries.

It seems to me that this is a crucial recommendation to ensure that there's an oversight protecting international students — particularly important as we increase international students here in British Columbia.

TRU is an excellent example of where their British Columbian student enrolments have stagnated. However, they have grown on the international student side. That's, of course, a public institution. Here we're talking about private institutions, where we do see that similar situation happening at private institutions. Yet the minister is saying that recommendation 9 has not been implemented. That is of grave concern. Is there a plan to implement recommendation 9?
[ Page 7228 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, we do recognize and value our reputation for quality post-secondary education in British Columbia. We will continue to put in place measures to strengthen and enhance our education quality and protection of students, particularly international students. We will be looking at ways to strengthen accountability.

Just for the member opposite's information, there are about 200 ESL schools in British Columbia. They register with PCTIA voluntarily. This is consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada and most of the neighbouring American states. We don't intend to regulate private ESL schools in a way that would be substantially different from the regulations in our neighbouring jurisdictions.

What I really want to say is that the ESL schools that meet government's recognized quality assurance standards — that's the EQA, which you've mentioned earlier — will be able to actually apply for the EQA status. That has gone a long ways to addressing the need for accountability for our students, particularly those from China and India.

M. Mungall: My understanding is…. Earlier on I think the minister said that there are only 60 private schools that have EQA status. Meanwhile there are 200 ESL schools alone — that's not including other private schools — that are registered with PCTIA on a voluntary basis. So what's going on with the other 140?

[1145]

The Chair: Hon. Members, if I might take this opportunity to ask you to join me in welcoming the students of Hamilton Elementary School — 38 grade 5 students and their teacher — who have joined us in the gallery.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The education quality assurance program — or EQA, as we know it — was introduced in November of 2009, and it is our brand for quality post-secondary education. It's a strong brand. It's a very, very strong brand. It is in the interests of private institutions to want to be able to be designated as an EQA institution. It will be hugely advantageous for them competitively if they can adopt that brand.

It is voluntary for the private post-secondary institutions, the ESL schools, if they choose not to adopt that brand. But in the competitive world — and the brand, we know, is strong — we'll be seeing an increased number of those private ESL schools looking to achieve that brand. It's the first of its kind in Canada.

What EQA does is it allows students to make an informed decision about where they want to study and allows them to choose the best experience for that education in B.C. It promotes high-quality B.C. institutions both domestically and abroad, and it allows students to recognize which institutions have met the government-recognized quality standards.

It's an important business tool, but what I want to perhaps just remind the member opposite is that it is one tool. The other area of protection for students is a consumer protection that they receive when they enrol in a private institution in B.C.

M. Mungall: I thank the minister for her response. It's generated a couple of more questions for me on this one.

First, I'll ask the question around EQA. She noted that there's marketing done to promote the EQA so that international students are aware of it and that schools under that brand meet a certain standard that the provincial government has set out. Is that marketing under that $1.5 million I earlier spoke about in reference to that line 67?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: No, it's actually BCCIE, which is the British Columbia Council for International Education, that markets this on our behalf.

M. Mungall: Then I'm assuming that the minister is saying that the BCCIE, who does the marketing of the EQA on the province's behalf…. How much money do they get to do that?

[1150]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: BCCIE receives $1.5 million from us, but that actually is for all their operations, all their activities. So the part of their activities which is marketing is a portion of this. I don't know what that portion is, but I would be pleased to get back to the member opposite to find out what the marketing portion of their overall operating fund is.

M. Mungall: I would appreciate that breakdown.

The other question that came from the minister's response there is the consumer protection component for students. Now, I'd like a little bit more detail on that, because of course she noted that recommendation No. 2 from the Watson report is being considered. That recommendation was, and I'll read it out: "Create a charter of student rights and responsibilities, implement a student complaint system based on that charter and give the registrar discretion to address issues of student protection with or without student complaints."

The minister has spoken to that already, noting that there have been some results for a student complaint system that arrived from Bill 43 and was implemented in June 2009. If the minister can talk specifically to what she meant by the consumer protection system….

I'm particularly concerned about that, because, of course, recently, over the last few months students at the Columbia Academy and University Canada West found themselves within a matter of days no longer with a program. One day they're going to school, and the next day
[ Page 7229 ]
they're not going to school. I would like to know what kind of complaint system they have so that they could register any complaints, should they have them.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Noting the hour and that the response may take a little bit more time, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Member for Nelson-Creston.

M. Mungall: Thank you, Chair. We have actually had three young post-secondary students in the gallery all morning watching estimates. It really shows the power of Twitter, because if I am correct, they are here because I put out a large tweet to post-secondary institutions' hashtags, inviting students to send me their questions. In fact, not only did we get questions, but we got students coming here to watch the democratic process happen. We have Jennifer Bowie, Dylan Sherlock and Jaraad Marani, who are up in the gallery. Will the House please make them welcome.

The Chair: Hon. Members, you've heard the motion.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

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

The Chair: Minister, would you like to reacquaint us with the staff you have with us?

Hon. T. Lake: I have with me today our deputy minister, Cairine MacDonald. I have Jim Standen, who is with our environmental protection division. I have Scott Benton, executive director of special projects; and Anthony Danks, executive director of strategic policy branch. We have numerous other staff members that will be helping us out as we move through the estimates this morning.

If I could just put on the record some information that arose out of our estimates debate yesterday. A couple of things — a couple of small corrections.

I had mentioned yesterday, in talking about the community gaming grants…. I just want to correct the record that these community gaming grants are now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. They were formerly under the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Also, I want to correct a statement I made about the diversity in British Columbia when we were talking about the species at risk. I said that we had the highest level of biodiversity in North America, and I just wanted to correct that. We do support the highest diversity of broad-ranging ungulates and large carnivores in North America and the highest level of biodiversity across the board in Canada.

[1010]

There was also a question about the number of projects in the environmental assessment process over the last several years. Just to read into the record that in 2009-2010 there were 78 projects in total; in 2010-2011, 76; and in current 2011-2012 year there are 70.

One other question arose yesterday. A member asked about vehicles, and the question was: "Does the minister know how many vehicles have been returned to his ministry or not in use due to funding restrictions in the last two fiscal years?"

I'd like to reply that the ministry has reduced its fleet by 64 vehicles from 2008 to the current year, to a number of 320. Part of this reduction is a result of working collectively with other ministries in the natural resource sector. We have asset- and vehicle-sharing agreements that are aimed at using our resources as effectively as possible and reducing costs related to ownership or rental of assets across the sector.

R. Fleming: I would like to ask the minister about Metro Vancouver's solid waste management plan. It has been completed and given to the Ministry of
[ Page 7230 ]
Environment since September 2010. I would ask him whether he has a specific schedule or an anticipated time when he will reply to Metro Vancouver about the solid waste management plan.

Hon. T. Lake: This is an extensive plan that staff have been busily reviewing and spending a lot of time on. The ministry staff are expected to give the plan to me in the next three weeks. It will take me some time to go through their analysis of the plan, but I understand, certainly, the level of interest there is in not only Metro Vancouver but in the Fraser Valley and other parts of the province as well.

We want to make sure we do a thorough job reviewing the plan, and once the review takes place with staff, I will want to make sure I have an adequate amount of time to review the plan myself. Hopefully, we'll be able to get back to Metro Vancouver with a decision on the plan this summer.

R. Fleming: The plan includes both out-of-region and in-region waste energy incinerators as part of its treatment of solid waste and landfill management. I wanted to ask the minister, because no decision has been made yet, why on the provincial government's major project inventory, incinerator projects — listed to the tune of $500 million capital investments — are included in that inventory when the ministry has indeed not given a signal and not made a decision on Metro's waste management plan.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I'm not intimately familiar with the capital plan, but my understanding is, Member, that the capital plan is kind of looking out to see what potential major projects could be happening in the province of British Columbia, both in the public and the private sector. Of course, there has been considerable discussion about waste energy projects in the media.

It's my understanding that it's kind of a forward-looking document to sort of signal what potential projects could be on the list of things that would happen. I also understand that lots of projects are put on that list that never do materialize. So it's not a commitment on anyone's part to endorse a project, certainly not in this case.

[1015]

R. Fleming: There are a number of aspirational goals around waste diversion to reduce our reliance on landfills that are littered in government reports and in regional district regulations. Obviously, the biggest target that the Ministry of Environment and other levels of government are working on is organic material — getting that out of the waste stream and turning it into other products and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from organic material.

Unlike Nova Scotia, British Columbia does not have a ban on organic material being dumped in landfills or being incinerated. So I'm wondering whether the minister is looking at some of the Climate Action Team's recommendations that look at emissions savings provincewide for treating organic material very differently in British Columbia than we have in past practice and what that means in terms of working with the regional districts — not just Metro Vancouver, but all of them.

Will there be new regulations coming down around organic material? And if there are, will there be supports helping local governments implement the capital and the investments that would be required to turn the organic material into a useful product and to capture any greenhouse gases that come from that?

Hon. T. Lake: The climate action secretariat has discussed, as the member mentioned, some aspirational goals around diverting organic matter from the waste stream. Certainly, we support that.

The solid waste management plans are created by regional districts and municipalities, and are approved by the Ministry of Environment and are encouraged to divert as much as possible. The Metro Vancouver plan talks a lot about diversion of organics, and some municipalities, I believe, have banned organics from the waste stream. So we're certainly moving in that direction. I know that in the city of Kamloops we have a very robust composting program — very popular with residents — and we certainly encourage that.

I'm glad the member agrees that organic composting is an effective way of dealing with that part of the waste stream. It represents an economic opportunity too, in terms of creating fertilizer and reusable soil essentially, through the composting of organic matter.

R. Fleming: I certainly recognize that organic material and composting facilities and capital investment that companies could make in doing that efficiently and effectively — with all kinds of odour control mechanisms that would make it more palatable, perhaps, for urban environments — are something that British Columbia could create an investment environment for.

This is a problem that…. We're looking to expand Asia-Pacific trade opportunities. If British Columbia were to lead and create technologies that countries like China and India and places where there is a real solid waste management problem, that could be a very strong and viable market. Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to do that unless we have some regulations.

[1020]

Nova Scotia is probably the most advanced province in the country, because in the late 1990s they did ban organic material. Now we have recommendations to the British Columbia government from its Climate Action Team. We have Metro Vancouver, which on a good day
[ Page 7231 ]
diverts about 55 percent of solid waste from landfills. It needs to get to 70 percent or 80 percent, and I don't see that happening without legal remedies to get that matter out of the waste stream.

I would ask the minister: are there discussions happening and legislative proposals that government is either sitting on or contemplating so that we can derive some kind of benefits from that, and help, so we don't just have a couple of municipalities here and there that are doing this but that it's a provincewide action that will help us with our provincewide emission reduction totals?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, legislation isn't necessarily the only tool available. We do work very closely and collaboratively with municipalities and regional districts as they create their solid waste management plans. In a comparison with Nova Scotia, I would say that British Columbia has some challenges that are somewhat unique to British Columbia in terms of topography and different climate and our animal population, wildlife population.

One of the concerns that we worry about in terms of diverting organic matter — food matter, particularly — from the waste stream is the concern around bears and raccoons and other wildlife that would be attracted by that organic matter. So while the goal of diverting that from the waste stream is admirable, I think we have to be very thoughtful about the way we do that.

I know there are Bear Aware coordinators throughout the province who have expressed concern to me about the need to do that in a thoughtful way so that we don't increase the attractants to wildlife. Of course, in many parts of British Columbia this human-wildlife interaction is problematic.

We do encourage diversion of organic matter from the waste stream. Some municipalities and some regional districts, in their solid waste management plans, have banned the disposal of grass clippings and food matter from the waste stream, and we certainly work with all of those jurisdictions to encourage that and to do it in a thoughtful way that doesn't cause unintended consequences.

R. Fleming: Well, the reason I'm asking these questions is because the minister said it's a delicate matter — the Metro Vancouver waste management plan that he's received. The government has taken some time in considering it. They have not signed off on it. There are issues to navigate.

Indeed, one of them is around waste incinerator proposals contained within that plan. The business case of operating an incinerator, and the costs of that, I think, depends very heavily on what the regulations are for organic material and other diversion tactics and products that we might get out of our landfills.

There are potentially competing economic interests here where, on the one hand, the incinerator companies would see organic material as feedstock to create an energy commodity that has a price to it that they can achieve, whereas in terms of the province, we have an interest in reducing greenhouse gases, which are now targets that are in law.

So I would ask the minister: does he have ministry staff working on this potential problem where we may have different interests that compete with how a region wishes to dispose of its waste and how the province, which takes responsibility for greenhouse gas reduction, may see things differently?

There is one incinerator facility in Metro Vancouver today. It's the fourth-largest emitter in all of Metro Vancouver. There's a proposal now to add more of them, and that in itself creates a problem as well.

[1025]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, certainly the issue of organic matter and the production of greenhouse gases is something that we're concerned about and work on with municipalities and regional districts. Now, 178 communities around British Columbia have signed the climate action charter committing to be carbon-neutral by 2012.

We're certainly working with communities on strategies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations are in place for the capture of landfill gas, and we know that is certainly something that has renewed interest around the province. We've heard proposals to capture landfill gas and create biogas to power trucks. We understand that there are proposals for organic matter composting facilities on a larger scale, which would be a good use of organic material.

In terms of incineration, it's my understanding that organic matter in food waste is not a very efficient feed stock for incineration — not the primary feed stock for those types of operations. But as I mentioned, in terms of waste-to-energy projects, these are all things that have been talked about, proposed, but certainly, nothing that has been permitted in terms of the solid waste management plan coming forward. That still has to be reviewed and decisions made at the local level in terms of the strategies they use for dealing with their solid waste.

R. Fleming: Solid waste and the incinerator in Metro Vancouver has brought up another issue around calculation of greenhouse gases and, I think, a dispute between Metro Vancouver and the province on how those are calculated. I wanted to see if the minister could comment on the differences between methodologies for calculating a tonnage of GHGs over the threshold where reporting is required. Metro Vancouver has looked at how the province calculates the emissions at the incinerator facility, which I think was calculated at 118,000 tonnes.
[ Page 7232 ]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Metro Vancouver is arguing that there is another method, consistent with the UN's IPCC and the federal government's, which would give a considerably lower calculation of 103,000 tonnes. I know that there was a letter to the deputy minister about this exact issue. Given that we're six or seven months away from a cap-and-trade agreement in the WCI and need to decide on the methodology, I wonder if the minister has responded to the manager of Metro Vancouver and what the details of that response are.

[1030]

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding is that there are discussions ongoing with Metro Vancouver on this particular issue. The issue arises over what is considered organic versus non-organic material. But I also want to report that any emitter over 10,000 tonnes has to report their emissions, and those over 25,000 tonnes would be included in the cap-and-trade model that we are looking at. All of that is aligned with our Western Climate Initiative partners.

One of the strengths of what we've done over the last several years is to create a single-window reporting methodology with the federal government. That's one of the strengths of what we've been doing on the climate action file over the last several years.

Whereas there may be some discussion over 118,000 versus 103,000, about a 10 percent difference there, the province and Metro are discussing this, and those discussions are ongoing.

R. Fleming: I'm sure those discussions are, and maybe we'll pick it up later when Metro Vancouver gets a response.

I wanted to ask the minister kind of a basic question about where recycling in this province began, which was with deposit-fee beverage return programs, I believe that in the 1970s it literally took litter and waste that was in our face and in our streets and in our communities. It has been incredibly successful and has longevity based on that track record. Our province was a leader in that regard for many, many decades.

We've slipped behind Alberta now in recovery rates on beverage containers, and we haven't added significantly to the deposit-based system for different types of beverage packaging. I'm wondering if the minister has contemplated expanding and doing some things that our neighbours in Alberta are now doing around, for example, milk beverage containers — cartons which end up in landfills in British Columbia, currently. Tetra packaging and juice pouches, which have a very low recovery rate, are also a problem.

It has been suggested that inclusion of milk containers, for example, in the deposit system could have a very positive effect on achieving the 70 and 80 percent waste diversion targets that many regional districts now have and could help us enjoy Alberta-type recovery rates for milk. Are those discussions that are happening with the industry?

It's always puzzled me that a four-litre jug does have a deposit, can be recycled and get a deposit return, but if it's in a different type of container — the same product — it can't be. The absurdity is even that juice and other types of packaging that do have a deposit are the very same style of packaging unit as some of the dairy products, but there is not a uniform deposit system. That is why we have perhaps a 30 or 40 percent lower return rate on those containers than our neighbours in Alberta.

[1035]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to report that B.C.'s return rate in terms of deposit containers is about 70 percent, which is certainly, I think, meeting our targets. Can we do better? Yeah, I think we always want to see how we can improve. We are working on other particular programs — packaging and printed paper, for instance. Milk containers would be included in that scenario.

I am meeting with industry. In fact, I have a meeting set up in the very near future with the bottle depot recycling industry to discuss this very issue. It's something where we always want to make sure that we are doing our very best to meet our targets and achieve our objectives of keeping material out of the waste stream. So certainly, I'm alive to the issue of milk containers.

V. Huntington: I wonder if I could ask the minister if he has read or been briefed on the Auditor General's report on the management of groundwater resources.

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly recognize the importance of sustainability of water, and our Living Water Smart program recognizes the importance of this issue in terms of British Columbia. As we face the growing population and the challenges of climate change, this will become an even more important issue.

The Auditor's report does present valuable information on the importance of groundwater, and we do certainly recognize and appreciate the input from the Auditor General. The report was, I think, discussed at Public Accounts last fall.

We are working through those recommendations, much of those through the modernization of the Water Act. We are moving through that process with more public consultation with key stakeholders, and much of the Auditor General's report will be addressed through that process. It's estimated that significant progress will be made through the modernization of the Water Act, and much of the Auditor General's report will be addressed in that way.

[1040]
[ Page 7233 ]

V. Huntington: I would like, however, to canvass two or three of the recommendations in the report and see to what stage the ministry is adequately working on the groundwater situation.

Firstly, I'd like to know…. One of the recommendations regarded the classification of provincial aquifers for all priority areas. I wonder if the minister could advise us what priority areas the provincial ministry has identified to this point.

Hon. T. Lake: Ministry staff estimate there are several thousand aquifers in the province, and about 2,000 are developed or, in other words, actively being used. To date over 900 have been classified, according to their vulnerability and demand — many of those in the Okanagan, where we know there is certainly concern in terms of groundwater; the east side of Vancouver Island; and in the Lower Mainland. The ministry is continually identifying aquifers that remain to be mapped.

V. Huntington: Could I ask, then, of the minister whether his department has reviewed the intense use of groundwater up in the northern oil and gas fields?

Hon. T. Lake: The use of water in the northeast part of the province with the oil and gas industry, or the gas industry primarily, has been the subject of discussion. We certainly are aware of the concerns. Last year the use of surface water, for instance. I think there were a couple of creeks that were of concern to the ministry, so we're monitoring that situation on an ongoing basis.

We work very closely with the Oil and Gas Commission in terms of water use in the gas industry. They are the regulator, but we work very closely with them and with Geoscience B.C.

I recognize the concern that the member is expressing and that others in British Columbia have expressed in terms of the amount of water being used and the way the water is being used in the northeast sector. We'll be working very closely, and through the modernization of the Water Act, that issue has certainly become a prominent issue in that process.

V. Huntington: I understand that the entire issue is actually being looked at in Energy and Mines, not within the Ministry of Environment. I'd like to know the rationale for that.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the Oil and Gas Commission is under the Ministry of Energy and Mines, so the member is correct. However, we have been working very diligently over recent years to try and coordinate and integrate services of government, particularly as they relate to the natural resource sector.

Whereas one ministry may have jurisdiction for permitting — the Oil and Gas Commission in this instance; Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in other instances — our ministry, the Ministry of Environment, works very closely in terms of informing policy around those permitting decisions. We feel that the integration that's occurring and the scrutiny that's applied are serving British Columbians well.

[1045]

V. Huntington: If the ministry has no integrated watershed management plan for the northeast sector and if it is not mapping the aquifers…. I understand that Geoscience, which is an industry-captured agency, is mapping it, and the ministry is supportive of that industrial mapping.

My concern is that the ministry itself, responsible for the policies for water stewardship in the province, is not on top of this as the agency developing that policy. You are working with Energy and Mines and with the Oil and Gas Commission, but the overall integrated policy regarding both the groundwater and the watershed itself is not being developed by your ministry.

I'd like to know what the specific relationship is between the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resource Operations and the Oil and Gas Commission. If you have no overarching policy with regard to water use in the northeast sector, then how do any of these bodies know what they should be permitting and what withdrawals are acceptable?

Hon. T. Lake: The member characterizes the situation, I think, in a very different way than it actually occurs. The ministry has spent over $200,000 on the consultation process around the water modernization. It has been a very well-received process. Public input has exceeded expectations, so we will continue to consult with different groups.

As the member may be aware if she has looked at the policy development around that piece of developing legislation, the area-based process has certainly highlighted that British Columbia is a very diverse province and that there's not a one-size-fits-all. There are areas — we've mentioned the Okanagan, the northeast part of the province and the Lower Mainland — where the pressure on water is greater than in other areas. The policy development addresses those sorts of issues.

Moving forward, we understand and recognize the uniqueness of different areas of the province. Policies that this ministry will develop in consultation with the stakeholders, First Nations and the general public — as well as our other ministries, in Energy and Mines, and Natural Resources — will certainly use that area-based approach to develop regulation that is appropriate for the area in question.

V. Huntington: I don't know whether the minister might be aware of the intensity of the use. As of April
[ Page 7234 ]
last year the Oil and Gas Commission had permitted the withdrawal of 62 million gallons a day from source points throughout the northeast. I don't know, and what I'm trying to find out from the minister is: who is monitoring the quantity and the permitting process and the policy related to that incredible withdrawal?

Those are withdrawals as of a year ago. I don't know what they are as of today. There doesn't seem to be any policy being developed by the ministry that is controlling this. You cannot leave the permitting to the Oil and Gas Commission without a very specific set of policies and regulations attached to that watershed and that groundwater.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member just heard me say that we are doing an extensive policy development, so when the member says that we are not developing policy, I beg to differ. We are developing policy as we speak.

It's a very extensive process. I've been briefed by staff. I've met with staff, met with stakeholders on this issue, including First Nations, who obviously have a huge interest in terms of water use in all areas of the province. We're committed to working with First Nations, with local government, with all ministries and all industry stakeholders to ensure that the resources of British Columbia are well managed.

Water is obviously something that we depend upon in every area of the province. We understand there are different stresses in terms of the water resource in different areas of the province.

[1050]

The northeast part of the province. We understand and know and do talk with our colleagues in the Oil and Gas Commission and other departments of government to understand the challenges that are put forward by the use of water by the industry in that area.

Industry provides millions and millions of dollars in terms of economic development for the people of that area — about a billion dollars a year to support health and education and other government services.

But as I said yesterday, we need to balance the desire for economic development with the need for sustainability. I commit to the member and to the people of British Columbia that this ministry, through the Water Act modernization process, will do just that.

V. Huntington: I'm about to end my questions and comments. However, the Water Act modernization policies are still going to take a number of years to complete. Meanwhile, I still don't have an answer for what priority this ministry has placed on watershed management for the northeast sector and whether they will take over the policy development for that sector.

Your ministry is the only one in Canada that doesn't monitor withdrawals for the purpose of fracturing. It should be with the ministry, at least attached to a significant policy developed by your ministry independent of the industry, both for contaminated water and treatment of the contaminated water and withdrawal for water.

I do not understand why the minister cannot give us an indication of the priority they are attaching to the development of policy in this area.

Hon. T. Lake: The Ministry of Environment has authority, under section 10(2) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, to audit the environmental performance of the Oil and Gas Commission. So that authority does lie with this ministry, and we take that very seriously.

Again, we understand the challenges posed by water use throughout the province. We are working very diligently on the modernization of the Water Act, a piece of legislation that is over a hundred years old. That could have been addressed by previous governments. It could have been addressed earlier by this government.

I'll admit to the member that this is something that we need to do. But I don't want to do that without making sure that we have the best input possible and that we come up with a piece of legislation that's going to last for a considerable time in the future. Given the amount of work and effort it takes to pass comprehensive legislation like this, I think that we need to do it in a thoughtful manner. We will take the time to do that.

We do want to do it in a timely fashion as well — knowing how British Columbians feel about the importance of water, knowing that it is key to sustainability throughout the province, not just for industry but for communities, for First Nations and for all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the line of questioning from the member for Delta South and want to pursue it a little bit further and stay on the topic of fracking — hydraulic fracturing — for a little bit.

The minister's last answer…. I wonder if the minister could, then, answer this simple question: when was the last time that the Ministry of Environment actually audited the Oil and Gas Commission's permitting of water for the use of hydraulic fracturing or other oil and gas activity?

[1055]

Hon. T. Lake: I welcome the member to the debate.

We do work closely with the Oil and Gas Commission. Last year they produced their water use report, which we had reviewed. In terms of the oil and gas industry, any project that extracts water to the extent of 75 litres per second is currently reviewable under the environmental assessment review process. When that is done, the water use is part of that review, and it's reviewed in a cumulative way. In other words, if there are multiple withdrawals, those are looked at cumulatively rather than each treated individually.
[ Page 7235 ]

B. Simpson: That explains the staff change there in terms of the auspices of that staff member.

But my question was very specific. I'm not talking about reviewing a report. The minister indicated that his ministry has an audit function. The real question here…. Again, we're always truncated for time, so I have to do a bit of a preface. There has been public reporting by the oil and gas industry to their shareholders that has indicated water utilization of a magnitude far greater than the public reporting of the Oil and Gas Commission on water permitted for those same operations. Those reports are in the public domain.

The question I have to the minister on this is, again, very specific. When was the last time that an actual audit — not a review of a report — was done to make sure that what industry is reporting, what oil and gas is reporting and what people on the ground are saying is happening is actually reflected in the Oil and Gas Commission's public reporting?

Hon. T. Lake: A discrepancy between water use reported by the Oil and Gas Commission versus water use reported by companies to their shareholders — I'm not aware of that. I'd be happy to meet with the member to discuss that situation. If that is the case, it's something that would be of concern to me, and I would commit to following up on that.

B. Simpson: As a matter for the public record, though, I'd like the minister to actually answer the question. Has an audit been done or conducted by his ministry?

Hon. T. Lake: No, an audit has not been done to this date. I would be interested in following up on the issue the member raises, because certainly we have that ability.

B. Simpson: Just very quickly on a comment the minister has made about the OGC report: is their water report a public report?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, it is.

[1100]

B. Simpson: Again, to the whole vein of this: who manages competing interests for water? Because it's not just cumulative.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, it does.

B. Simpson: Again, to the whole vein of this: who manages competing interests for water? It's not just cumulative use. As the minister well knows, the southern area of that region where we get some of the new activity in hydraulic fracturing has also been an emergency drought management zone. The minister has already indicated that there are areas in there where we see creeks drying, etc.

But there is the issue of competing use — agricultural use of water, domestic use of water, the oil and gas use of water. The government has actually conceded authority to one user, and that's the Oil and Gas Commission, in permitting over 70 percent of the water withdrawals under temporary permits. That's actually predisposed to a particular industrial use and potentially a great threat to other uses.

My question to the minister is: who is the ultimate manager and arbiter of water usage and the fair and equitable distribution of the water?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, we are developing policy around modernization of the Water Act, and that is the purview of the Ministry of Environment. The operational side of water permitting, the statutory decision-maker, lies with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. So as we explained yesterday, in terms of the ministry alignments, the Ministry of Environment informs policy, develops policy. Implementation, in many cases, is left to, in this case, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

B. Simpson: As the member for Delta South pointed out, there's a time frame issue here because the government has an explicit intention of expanding, and actually uses public policy to expand oil and gas activity, which is the largest single-point user of water.

At the same time, we have questions now arising about the state of the Williston reservoir, which is necessary for another intention of government, which is clean energy through hydro production — and, of course, agricultural utilization, particularly in the southern part of that region, in which, I think, it's two successive years at least of a drought management zone in that area. I get that there's a Water Act modernization underway, but the issue is present and needs to be reconciled presently.

Let me just ask the minister to close off the water, because I do have to move on to a couple of other quick issues. With respect to the withdrawal of water from the Williston reservoir, there are potentially two pipeline proposals before government. The minister has indicated that the new Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is the permitting agent now, which used to be a function of the Ministry of Environment.

Would it come under the EAO process, in the minister's responsibility, if there are proposals in for pipeline withdrawal of water from the Williston reservoir? My understanding is that there are two proposals put forward for pipeline withdrawal of water from that Williston reservoir.
[ Page 7236 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I'm unaware of proposals to withdraw surface water from Williston reservoir by pipeline, but those would not necessarily trigger an environmental assessment.

[1105]

The permitting would be done by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. So certainly, you could canvass…. I believe they've done their estimates, so it's probably too late, but we can follow up individually with the member.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's offer of that. I will follow up with him and with the other minister involved because I think it is a cross-ministry function. There are policy implications, which is this minister's responsibility, as well as the permitting implications for that.

I need to move on. I want to just briefly canvass the issue of the hydraulic-fracturing toxins. The minister is probably well aware that it's quite a toxic soup that's used to do this hydraulic fracturing. Most jurisdictions are now beginning to rethink the issue that it's a proprietary secret and should not be reported out.

If the minister hasn't seen it, he might want to go to look at the congressional hearings on this, when an oil and gas executive listed what were known carcinogens, known neurotoxins, etc., that are in this soup.

As of today in British Columbia, I understand, it is only available on the material safety data sheets at the worksite. Is the government considering doing what other jurisdictions are doing and requesting and requiring public reporting of these toxins in the toxic soup that's put into our natural resources?

Hon. T. Lake: The issue of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is certainly very topical. We know Quebec has put a moratorium on it. People from Quebec are looking to British Columbia in terms of the regulations we have in effect. Shale gas and fracturing, the hydraulic-fracturing process, has been used for about 20 years in British Columbia. So, certainly a lot of….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: Not for shale — Member, you're correct — but for injection in terms of extracting natural gas.

Certainly, the technology used here, in my understanding, is quite different from what was used in Quebec, and the topography and geology is quite different from Quebec as well. My understanding is that the shale gas in Quebec is closer to the surface and around more urban areas, and certainly, that has caused some concern.

In British Columbia the injection of water and other parts of the solution occur far below aquifers, but I understand the member's concern in terms of the composition of the fracturing fluid. We are advised by industry that it is a proprietary formula. We recognize, however, that there is some public concern in terms of what is in that formula. We are certainly monitoring the situation very closely.

The member referred to the congressional hearings. The environmental protection association of the United States will be coming out with a comprehensive report, I believe, in 2012, so there's a lot of ongoing work. I have been following this; our staff are following this. We want to make sure that we're at the leading edge in terms of protecting our natural environment and helping this industry be a sustainable one that is in balance with the natural environment.

B. Simpson: Again, truncating the debate, I appreciate the minister's responses. But as the minister should be aware, France has banned this outright. South Africa banned it outright. Germany is looking at banning it outright. New Jersey is looking at banning it outright, if they haven't done so already. New York has got a moratorium on it. Quebec has got a moratorium on it. And this is all levels: from coal bed methane to shallow shale to deep shale.

Other jurisdictions are being very, very cautious about this, and here's B.C. with an explicit public policy to drive this industry through subsidies and various other things.

[1110]

To the minister's point: I think the minister ought to be cautious about falling into what seems to be the message box around this, which is, "Best regulated" and "It's deep shale," etc. The minister must know that we also do coal bed methane in that same area. There's more shallow work being done as well. So that region has the full range of fracturing going on.

But with respect to the minister's comments about the proprietary use, then I would hope that we pay attention to other jurisdictions.

There's the follow-up to that — I'm trying to understand who, again, has oversight — and that is the safe disposal of these toxins, whether that's through treatment, through injection or whatever the case may be. Again, because of the realignment of the ministries there's uncertainty as to who ultimately has responsibility to make sure that's being done.

The regulation, as I understand it, is very simplistic. This stuff is supposed to be disposed of safely, but what does that mean? And who is monitoring it? So just very simply, because we have to get on to other things, if the minister could clarify: which entity in government owns the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safe disposal of these toxins when they're brought back out of the ground?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the various ministries involved, Energy and Mines, the Oil and Gas Commission,
[ Page 7237 ]
Ministry of Environment, and Natural Resource Operations, work collaboratively. The Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for issuing and administering Environmental Management Act waste discharge permits and approvals for the provincially regulated oil and gas facilities, whereas the Ministry of Environment is responsible for issuing and administering those waste discharge permits and approvals for federally regulated oil and gas facilities. Examples would be interprovincial pipelines and compressor stations. So we work collaboratively.

But I think the member brings up an issue that is very topical in terms of concern of the public and of governments. He mentioned a number of jurisdictions that are looking at this. Certainly, we're going to follow that very closely.

R. Fleming: I would like to ask the minister some questions about the climate action secretariat and some of the climate action policies of government. He may need to shift some chairs.

There are several questions I want to ask about the secretariat's budget and why it has been targeted for a fairly steep reduction, one that wasn't contemplated in previous service plans. The funding has declined for the climate action secretariat, which has considerable responsibilities across government: coordinating ministries and ensuring that government is acting in concert through all of its agencies and ministries together towards shared goals for our province and for the public sector in particular.

That budget has declined from about $15 million to $5.1 million in this budget in the restated estimates for the secretariat. Going from the 2008 actual numbers to the estimates of 2011, that's significant. Certainly the work and the importance of what the secretariat is doing has not declined, so the minister can maybe tell me why this particular branch of his ministry has been targeted for such steep cuts.

I particularly want to put the question in context, because I think that 2012, as we know, is a very pivotal year. It's where the first interim target under legislation around greenhouse gases will come into effect. We are to achieve a 6 percent reduction provincewide. The last time that inventory numbers for greenhouse gases were available in British Columbia was not good news. The provincial totals had increased by 1 percent. We were the only province out of ten in Canada to see its greenhouse gas emissions rise at that particular time.

[1115]

Now we have a target in 2012 that requires us to achieve a 6 percent reduction on the way to 2020 when emissions are to be reduced by 33 percent. This is incredibly important, not just to British Columbia but in the global context. That's why we have set these targets in law.

So far we appear to be going the other way. We have a carbon tax. For example, if you look at our carbon-pricing instruments available to government, that now contribute to the province's deficit. In other words, it returns more in tax cuts than it achieves in carbon pricing, in carbon tax.

We have an instrument in the public sector to achieve carbon neutrality, the purchasing of offsets, that takes the public sector in total, which is responsible for less than 1 percent of emissions in the province, and subsidizes primarily projects by major industrial emitters in the private sector economy. We do not have any way for the emitters to green the public sector. It does not go both ways.

There have been a number of criticisms of that policy raised by the sector that involves the health authorities, school districts and others. Given that there is a lot to work out, given that there is much to do in the Climate Action Team's recommendations to government that hasn't been acted upon, I wonder why the brain trust, the central coordinating hub for climate action policies in British Columbia, has seen a 67 percent cut since this institution was created.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to see that the member is recognizing the leadership position that British Columbia has taken on the climate action file and happy to see that he's now in favour of our model carbon tax, our revenue-neutral carbon tax. It's been looked at by jurisdictions around the world. Many jurisdictions are looking at what British Columbia has done in terms of leadership on this file and emulating what is going on here in British Columbia.

The climate action secretariat's budget is seeing a reduction this year from last year of about $677,000. There are no reductions in place over the three-year fiscal plan moving forward. As I mentioned yesterday, in 2008 the economic conditions of the world changed, and reductions were felt across government in order to maintain service, particularly to health and education.

But I can tell this member that our Premier and this government are committed to continuing to meet our goals for greenhouse gas emissions and our climate action goals. We saw a small increase in the short term, when the carbon tax policy was in the early stages, at a rate that was fairly low to bring consumers and industry along with the policy — probably not high enough at that point to change behaviour.

I know that many people, when they see their gas prices go from a dollar a litre to $1.30 or $1.40 a litre, do change their behaviour. That's the impact of a carbon tax that gradually increases. It moves people over time, as they see that increasing price signal, to change their behaviour, whether it's getting a more efficient car; moving to a townhouse; using public transit more often; or industry looking to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions,
[ Page 7238 ]
reduce the combustion of fossil fuels to avoid paying more on the carbon tax side.

Recent numbers indicate that in fact, our greenhouse gas emissions have reduced in the last year. We do have legislated targets for reductions of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Are those ambitious targets? Absolutely. They're among the most ambitious anywhere in the world. Without ambitious targets, you can't get the kind of response that you would like to see.

We know those are ambitious targets. We're working hard, moving both our residents and our industry towards those targets. We've seen some very imaginative and very innovative technologies in British Columbia, whether it's the use of liquefied natural gas for trucks and fleets; the hydrogen highway, the development of 20 hydrogen-powered fuel cell buses in Whistler; or local communities looking at community energy systems and bioenergy to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions.

[1120]

I would say that British Columbia is recognized around the world for what we are doing on the climate action file, and it's a testament to our climate action secretariat that they are able to continue this great work in a time of fiscal challenge.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister — we were talking about the environmental assessment office yesterday — if now included in an environmental assessment in the province of British Columbia…. Are the greenhouse gases and the climate impacts of industrial projects commented upon and part of the recommendations — whether a project should proceed or not as it affects the provincewide totals and projections on greenhouse gases?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes. Greenhouse gas emissions are considered in the environmental assessment process for those major projects and certainly are one of the factors considered. I mentioned yesterday that in the environmental assessment process there's a balance of economic, environmental, health, social and heritage values that are considered in that process, greenhouse gases being one of the environmental issues that's considered.

R. Fleming: Well, then I would like to ask the minister how it was that the province and the former Minister of Environment issued a permit for the EnCana Cabin gas plant, which alone as a single new facility emits 2.2 million tonnes. It's the equivalent of adding 450,000 cars to the province's road networks.

Originally the province conducted an environmental assessment that contemplated that the company would sequester its emissions and that that would be part of the evaluation. We ended up with a permit being issued for a project that has no such requirements and no such sequestration of greenhouse gases. And 2.2 million tonnes into the atmosphere in British Columbia, by the way, represents a 3.7 percent increase in our province's total, at a time when we are expected to be achieving a 6 percent reduction by 2012.

If, indeed, greenhouse gases are a part of the review done by the environmental assessment office, how in this case could a project that is the equivalent of adding 450,000 cars to our road network be let off the hook from sequestering carbon or mitigating a huge addition to the province's inventory of greenhouse gases?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct in that greenhouse gas emissions are considered, and the conclusion of the environmental assessment of the Cabin gas project was that, with respect to carbon emissions…. You know, that was looked at and was considered a potential adverse environmental effect — no question. But on balance, the positive benefits in terms of the economic, social, health and heritage values were strong enough to come to a decision to approve the project.

I think it's important to understand, too, that one of the conditions applied to this project was that it had to be built to be capture-ready. Carbon capture and sequestration are something that many jurisdictions are looking at — certainly, proposals in British Columbia for CCS. So this plant will be built so that it is adaptable to carbon capture and storage.

[1125]

I think it's also important to understand that while the member opposite may discuss and bring up the natural gas industry as a contributor to greenhouse gases, I might remind the member that natural gas is an important transition fuel as we move away from fossil fuels to alternative energy. When we look at the planet and the atmosphere, it knows no boundaries. So if the use of natural gas is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally, certainly we're happy that British Columbia is supporting that.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about process emissions in British Columbia that are not included in the carbon tax. They're explicitly exempted. This facility in EnCana's Cabin gas plant that we're discussing…. That is a $31 million exemption given to that company from the carbon tax that other British Columbians and other businesses pay and are required to be included in the carbon tax regime at a time when the carbon tax in British Columbia is not revenue-neutral.

It's revenue-negative to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and growing over time; i.e., the tax cuts outweigh the revenue being achieved, and it's actually contributing to the province's deficit. We've heard the minister talk in estimates about how concerning it is to him that he is really unable to convince his cabinet colleagues that things like parks funding and interpretation
[ Page 7239 ]
services, all the good things that we want, aren't available because of the province's deficit.

It seems to me that it's his responsibility to listen, perhaps to the climate action secretariat's advice, and provide advice to government about how they're going to fix a carbon tax that promised to price emissions and move us to a greener economy but, in fact, is contributing to the net deficit of the province of British Columbia and why they would continue, given that is the situation, to give a $31 million gift in this instance to this one facility?

Hon. T. Lake: I find it interesting that the member opposite, who urged us to axe the tax, is now asking us to broaden the tax. It's kind of an interesting position for the member to be in. I'm sure it's uncomfortable at times, but it points to the mixed positions that the member opposite and his colleagues have regarding the carbon tax.

Certainly, fugitive emissions, non-combustible emissions are a concern, and under a cap-and-trade system these emissions would be captured and under other systems of carbon tax policy could be captured as well.

We are working with industry. We're working with our Western Climate Initiative partners on the design of a cap-and-trade program that would capture these non-combustible emissions. We certainly would look at a more broad and comprehensive carbon tax should cap-and-trade not be ideal for British Columbia because we've always said that there will be no cap-and-trade without trade.

We have to move forward with our partners in a coordinated way to make sure that the market is sufficient. I know that the member opposite is a proponent of cap-and-trade, so I know that he will encourage us to develop regulations with our partners that ensure that British Columbia not only meets its targets in terms of the environment but that it continues to have a sustainable and prosperous economy to support families throughout the province.

R. Fleming: Does the minister believe, and has he received advice or briefing notes, that project that British Columbia will meet its interim target of a 6 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2012 next year?

[1130]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the targets that British Columbia has set are among the most aggressive in the world. The member is asking whether or not we will meet interim targets by 2012. We can't say at this point. Are we on track? We certainly are following it closely.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

We know that our latest reduction in greenhouse gases over the past year probably had something to do with the reduction in terms of economic activity, because that's a big factor in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly, we know that one way to curb greenhouse gas emissions is to shut the economy down, because that's probably the fastest way to do it — something that probably isn't acceptable to most British Columbians. So I wouldn't advise that sort of strategy.

We've made some great strides, and we could point to many, many different projects. Certainly, the leadership shown by this government in becoming the first carbon-neutral government in North America is significant, and we hope to soon announce in terms of quantifying that.

But is it aggressive? Is it challenging? Absolutely, Member. It certainly is. The interim targets are there to serve as a report card to give us indicators of how we can do better, to align our policy to make sure that what we're doing actually has the kinds of outcomes we would like to have. The legislated targets are not until 2020, and that's a 33 percent reduction over 2008 levels. So we will continue to monitor and strive to reach those goals.

B. Simpson: Again, some quick questions here. I do hope the minister will take a careful look at how clean shale-bed natural gas is. As I'm sure the minister is aware, more reports are coming out that that is a questionable contention — that it's clean. In fact, one report was just issued recently stating that it's actually dirtier than coal. So the government's rationalization for embarking on this has to be carefully managed and monitored.

I have a question related to EnCana and the releases in that region relative to the Pacific Carbon Trust, which falls under the domain of the climate action secretariat. It's an oversight question. But I'm going to frame the question and ask the minister: who has oversight over the trust and its activities?

I know the financial aspect of that is in Finance, but regulations and the frame of the Pacific Carbon Trust are actually the climate action secretariat, as I understand it. I've got the orders-in-council and whatnot and changes to regulation written by the climate action secretariat.

The issue in question, as the Environment critic pointed out, is you have EnCana opening up the Cabin gas plant, putting an additional 2.2 million tonnes into the air. We got an announcement last week that they're going to be given money from the public sector in an offset program for somehow reducing 84,000 tonnes over three years.

There's a huge issue with that. I'm sure the minister is aware that people struggle with the public money going to private projects in the first place. I met with the CEO of the trust over this issue, and I'm not convinced that project actually qualifies either by standard or by regulation.
[ Page 7240 ]

I can lay out the argument more clearly for the minister. Here's the gist of it. That project was reported out in '09 by the Oil and Gas Commission as a project that was implemented in 2008. The technology was used in 2008, and an 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was achieved between '08-09. It was being reported as part of the 50 percent reduction in gas flaring that this government has mandated for the sector.

So the trust is not allowed to give money to projects that have no barriers — no technological barriers, no innovation barriers and no financial barriers. It's part of their standard. The money wasn't assigned until 2011; it's backdated to '08. The regulation specifically states that any GHG reduction obtained and reported as part of either a voluntary or mandatory reduction program also does not qualify for offsets. So on a number of counts I struggle with this, and I had a discussion with the CEO about it.

[1135]

My question to the minister is: who now can this being taken to? Who in government has oversight over whether or not these offset projects, which take $25 million from the public sector that should be in classrooms and hospitals and everything else, and give it to these private sector companies…? Who is checking and verifying the Pacific Carbon Trust? There are 25 more of these announcements coming between now and June, and we'd better know that somebody is taking a good hard look at them.

Hon. T. Lake: The member and I met on this particular subject. I know he has expressed some concern.

The Pacific Carbon Trust, in terms of its regulations…. The regulations are extensive. They are audited by a third-party body to ensure that these projects are in fact meeting those regulations. If the member has concern that any particular project is not meeting those regulations, I'd be happy to discuss that with him and with the Pacific Carbon Trust to ensure that, in fact, the Pacific Carbon Trust is meeting those regulations.

The issue of carbon-neutral government and organizations in government, whether it's in ministries or in the public sector, being responsible for their own emissions is part of leadership, part of showing leadership in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The member brings up an issue whereby money is deposited with the Pacific Carbon Trust by the public sector, who need to offset their greenhouse gas emissions over their carbon-neutral requirement. That money is used to incentivize behaviour change on the part of public sector or private sector, because the end goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, whether it's in the public sector or the private sector.

We're on the leading edge of this type of policy in North America, and I am happy to review the policy. I'm happy to take the action necessary to ensure that the outcomes we desire are being achieved, and they're being achieved in a way that is accepted by British Columbians. We always want to improve our processes, Mr. Chair, and I'm always open to looking at discussing with all members and with the civil service ways of improving the way that we manage these very aggressive leading-edge goals for greenhouse gas reductions.

R. Fleming: The member for Cariboo North has made a point that we're hearing a lot about from school administrators in the public sector. People are bothered by a transfer of a carbon fee to ski resorts, cement plants, large industrial emitters at a time when they are managing budgets that have been cut, when they are dealing with issues that they have statutory obligation to, around class size and composition, regulations — all of those things — and when they are managing wait-lists in health care services.

One thing I have not heard, though, from education leaders or from those in health care or any of the captured PSOs — public service organizations — is a proposal to do away with being a carbon-neutral public sector. Nobody is interested in that. What they want to do, though, is pay into a fund that will green their own infrastructure, and this is exactly how it is done in other countries.

[1140]

The Carbon Trust U.K. is composed of regional consortiums of public sector entities like health authorities, like school districts, like universities and colleges, which then look at where they are going to invest those funds into greening the public sector. That is not the model that we chose in British Columbia. Instead we take one of the smallest emitters — the entire public sector — and transfer money to the largest emitters in the private economy, and the private economy does not purchase offsets to do the very same in the public sector. I think that is why there is such dissatisfaction with this model.

What is interesting is that in 2012 local government will meet its carbon neutrality obligations. But they at least have considerably more freedom to design how they wish to do that. There are a number of options. They can self-fund. They can also form regional green consortiums with other local governments in other regional districts. Or they can go into the open market and buy offsets — in some cases buy offsets at a lower rate than what the Pacific Carbon Trust charges.

Now, that is the direction that a number of mayors and Metro Vancouver have said they want to go. They want to take the money from the offsets and achieve carbon neutrality in their own jurisdictions. They do not want to transfer money into subsidies and into projects, some of which have not been properly verified, according to a number of sources in other parts of the economy.

Given that local government in 2012 will be able to meet its carbon neutrality obligations in a completely
[ Page 7241 ]
different way — fund, for example, greening recreation centres or greening municipal activities of any sort in local government — would the minister consider allowing the schools, universities, colleges and hospital sectors to adopt the same model that local government is free to pursue in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member may have seen my public comments that have said I would be happy to review and look at ways in which communities can meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets to become carbon-neutral by 2012.

When you think of communities, local government, school boards and hospitals are integral parts of the community. The member for Cariboo North and I have discussed this in our meeting. It's something that I think demands a bit of a review in terms of how we help communities meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets and how the public sector meets their greenhouse gas reduction targets.

There are some legislative issues in terms of the way a carbon-neutral government works, but I'm happy to look at other models. What we're trying to do is achieve a goal, and we need to review what we're doing. If there's need for flexibility, if there's a need to pull people along in a different way, I'm happy to review that.

I certainly can't commit to the member today that we will fully implement the idea that he's put forward today, but I think the idea has some merit and that we should consider ways that we can help communities — which is more than just local government; it's our hospitals and our schools — work together to achieve the common goals of all British Columbians.

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for that answer. I think the invitation to pursue the conversation outside of estimates is appreciated.

I think we're running out of time here in estimates this morning, but I would like to just go back to the carbon tax and also see if the minister would commit to advancing in the Legislative Assembly and in the broader public a similar conversation about how we could make the carbon tax in British Columbia as efficient and effective as possible.

A number of commentators…. Even the Premier of B.C. acknowledged this week that the carbon tax is in trouble in the sense that it is now revenue-negative; it is not revenue-neutral. She has voiced an opinion that she wishes to see the carbon tax in future be directed towards activities that the official opposition has long called for — things like public transit and green infrastructure in rural communities of all sorts — to link the carbon tax to providing choices and alternatives in people's daily lives that would actually reduce their own carbon footprints — having government play a role in doing that.

[1145]

When you consider that in Metro Vancouver, for example, TransLink and all of the mayors have been calling for precisely that, when they have looked to find a way forward to the funding logjam…. That is why the Evergreen line, for example, hasn't been built, hasn't been able to take cars off the road by providing a public transit alternative. It's because the carbon tax has not been able to be put on the table.

I'm pleased that the Premier has made that remark, but I would ask the minister to consider all of us, in a bipartisan way, working on carbon pricing and climate action and bringing it in to the Legislature. The Select Standing Committee on Environment that we had in British Columbia has not met since the mid-1990s.

We have huge challenges around climate change that do not match the four-year electoral cycle. They have to engage the public for decades at a time. They will in some cases require sacrifices, many investments that will pay off dividends over a longer period of time, and it requires the assembly to look at how that will happen.

I would ask him today if he would consider putting the carbon tax under a specific review of a Legislative Assembly committee and, beyond that, to have some kind of legislative committee on climate change — like they have in the U.K., like they have in Australia, like they have in many legislatures. We don't have that here in British Columbia. It's obviously hugely important, and it could be an important committee for the decades into the future.

I would ask the minister, to finish off estimates, if he could comment on that.

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, up until this point it would be extremely difficult to have a bipartisan committee to talk about the carbon tax because many members of that committee wouldn't have agreed with the carbon tax. Now, at least, we have a basis for agreement and understanding about the importance of the carbon tax.

I certainly can't commit to the member's suggestion today, but I can reflect the thought that he's put forward and the Premier has voiced in terms of moving forward a carbon tax in the future. It's been discussed in the public realm by many people — about incremental increases to the carbon tax being used to help us achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goals, whether it's in public transit or finding ways and means in the rural parts of British Columbia to help them, people like my constituents in the North Thompson, to achieve their goals of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

The member talks about the Evergreen line. I'm sure that he will acknowledge the number of cars taken off the road by the Canada Line and the huge success of that project, which I'm not sure the member supported or not. We are happy that it's there. Many British Columbians are.
[ Page 7242 ]

We have a $14 billion transit plan in the province. I'm happy, having been a board member of B.C. Transit, to have played a role in the expansion of transit all over the province. There's more to do, absolutely. Looking at incremental increases post-2012 to support some of those initiatives I think is a worthy discussion that I'm looking forward to.

Vote 25: ministry operations, $100,483,000 — approved.

Vote 26: environmental assessment office, $8,754,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175