2011 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, March 15, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WEEK

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, 2012 marks the 100th-year anniversary of the Better Business Bureau internationally The province is declaring March 17 to 23 as Better Business Bureau Week to celebrate the centennial and recognize the relationship between the business community and consumers across British Columbia.

The Better Business Bureau provides free, accessible information to the public, reporting on business practice and tackling misleading advertising in the marketplace. I'd please ask that all members of the House join me in celebrating Better Business Bureau Week next week.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I have two sets of introductions to make. First, I'd like to introduce a couple of my constituents who are here: Aarom Mueller, who's an on-line educator with the Vancouver school board, and Caroline Shuh, who's a grade 4 and 5 French teacher at Lord Tennyson Elementary. And maybe even more important, Aarom and Caroline are planning their wedding for this summer, so please offer your congratulations and welcome them to the House.

My second introduction today. I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my sister, who's here, Debbie Simpson, and my nephew Liam Simpson, who's often better known in our family as Little Trouble. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery and, I think, in one case in the precincts are a couple of very good friends and outstanding British Columbians: first, Olga Ilich, who we all know and remember fondly — a former minister, a former MLA in this chamber; and also Anna Nyarady, who is a good friend and outstanding British Columbian, past chair of the B.C. Assessment Authority and a former member of the board of the Royal B.C. Museum.

Both Olga and Anna are here in Victoria to celebrate the retirement of another outstanding British Columbian, who I think we all in this chamber would know well. That is Pauline Rafferty, who for many years has served and served with distinction as the CEO of the Royal B.C. Museum. Pauline has made a decision to retire, and I'm sure all members of the House would not only want to wish Anna and Olga welcome but also to extend our congratulations as legislators to the exceptional service that Pauline has provided to the province of British Columbia.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WEST END CLEANUP

S. Chandra Herbert: Butts, butts and more butts. That's what you find in the West End on the second Saturday of the month. In addition to the cigarette butts, there are fast-food wrappers, coffee cups, compostables, recycling and, unfortunately, more trash left behind on our streets. But thanks to the volunteers of West End Cleanup and local business people who take an interest, our streets are much cleaner.

Founded in May 2007, West End Cleanup is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year. It started with 18 volunteers as part of the Keep Vancouver Spectacular campaign, who afterwards decided to do it every month. Since then, rain or shine, on the second Saturday of the month they've met at Cardero and Comox streets at 9:55 to clean up.

They've had 80 people out on a good weekend and average about 20, and many more have adopted their own blocks and clean them up every week. They average 40 bags of garbage each session, which really should give us all pause. That's a lot of waste, which highlights how we as legislators need to take action to help our province create less garbage by reducing packaging and reducing, reusing and recycling.

It's an incredible group of volunteers, who I've been pleased to join, cleaning up our streets. Sometimes we're joined by Butthead, the cleanup's mascot, who reminds smokers to put their butts into the bins and not onto the streets, where they can end up washing out into the ocean.

To the buttheads who make their jobs tougher: as the kids in elementary school know, don't be a litterbug. Put it in the bin. The volunteer leader, John Merzetti, and all the volunteers who've been there since day one, rain or shine, and all the new folks who join them on the weekends to keep the West End clean, on behalf of West Enders, thank you.

[1340]

WEST VANCOUVER CENTENNIAL

J. McIntyre: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to ask the House to join me and my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano in wishing West Vancouver happy 100th birthday. The district of West Vancouver is inviting one and all to honour its past and celebrate its future with a community-wide festival recognizing its centennial.

It was incorporated on March 15, 1912, after separat-
[ Page 10266 ]
ing from North Vancouver, and held its first municipal election within weeks. Twenty-six years after that first election Lions Gate Bridge, built by the Guinness family, opened to the public, connecting the Lower Mainland with our community, which before then had been only accessible by ferry.

I encourage you to learn more about the stories of the early communities of Ambleside, Dundarave, Altamont, Caulfeild, Horseshoe Bay and others in West Vancouver Historical Society's excellent new book honouring our centenary entitled Cottages to Community: The Story of West Vancouver's Neighbourhoods.

Over the last century we have developed a reputation for incredible scenery and great outdoor living. We are home to Cypress Provincial Park, the snow venue for the 2010 games, and local parks like Ambleside, John Lawson, Lighthouse and Whytecliff Park. Not many communities in the world can boast a ski hill and an ocean a mere 30 minutes apart, where sometimes you can ski and sail in the same day.

Our community is so picturesque that many Canadians also choose to retire here. Along with White Rock, we have the highest proportion of seniors in the province.

So as a kickoff to a year of centennial events throughout West Vancouver, birthday festivities are being held this very afternoon at the West Vancouver Memorial Library where, along with the family- and kids-oriented celebration, the library's new digital collection of historical photographs is being launched.

If you cannot make it today, stay tuned for more details about the amped-up annual community celebrations that are planned for June 2, along with other upcoming events.

Happy centennial birthday, March 15, 2012, to West Vancouver.

SINKING OF Queen of the North
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OF GITGA'AT TERRITORY

G. Coons: March 22, 2006, will be a day I never forget. I received a call around one o'clock in the morning with the news the Queen of the North had sank. Two lives were lost. My thoughts still go out to the Rosette and Foisy families and hope that closure will come sooner rather than later. There are still lingering, devastating impacts on passengers and crew members, who were bumped from their beds into the cold night and traumatized beyond imagination.

Communities on the north and central coast were hit hard economically and the public image of our ferry fleet damaged. A criminal investigation is active and ongoing, but closure is still far in the future.

We can never forget the quick actions of the crew, the Coast Guard and especially the heroes of Hartley Bay. The Gitga'at fishermen were the first to respond to the distress call when the Queen sank just past midnight. Rescuers set out in a fleet of small fishing and recreational vessels to pick up many of the 99 survivors.

As many of us move on, six years later, it's difficult for the heroes of Hartley Bay, the gallant Gitga'at, as they still deal with the daily upwelling of fuel, asbestos, lead, mercury and other toxins in their territory, impacting traditional harvesting of shellfish, seaweed and a host of other riches from the sea.

I was at the joint review panel hearings on the Enbridge project two weeks ago in Hartley Bay — still hearing how the promises made about the Queen of the North wreck were all broken. Whether restoring Gitga'at territory to its pristine condition or monitoring for contaminants in their harvesting areas, the trust factor has been shattered at all levels.

As watchmen of the Great Bear rain forest, the Gitga'at are also sounding the alarm about their fears of a crude oil tanker spill and the irreparable harm to their culture and the devastation of their ecologically diverse territory.

They know the pain of environmental damage from a vessel sinking, and they vow to rid oil tankers from traversing through their traditional territories.

RETIREMENT OF FRASER MacRAE
FROM SURREY RCMP

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the RCMP is losing one of their finest. Assistant Commissioner, officer in charge of Surrey RCMP detachment, Fraser MacRae, is retiring from the Surrey RCMP force.

I have come to know Fraser MacRae very well over the past year as he has led the Surrey RCMP detachment, one of the best detachments in Canada and one of the largest RCMP detachments in Canada.

I would like to say that I will miss him greatly, because he has assisted me in my role as an MLA countless times over the last eight years. He is an exceptionally outstanding officer and a fine example of the RCMP motto, "Defenders of the law."

Not only has he gained and earned the respect of citizens throughout Surrey, he is highly regarded within the RCMP. Assistant Commissioner MacRae, on his retirement on June 1, 2012, will have completed 35½ years of RCMP, all spent in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. He has served in the E division headquarters, which will soon be moved to Surrey, and within the North Vancouver, Burnaby and Ridge Meadows detachment. He currently leads 651 police officers at the Surrey RCMP detachment, along with another 250 municipal force staff and approximately 300 volunteers.

[1345]

During his time with the RCMP detachment Fraser MacRae has made great strides in combating crime in our Surrey. He and his team have made a huge dent in the marijuana grow-op industry, and through his direction, car thefts, petty crime, gang violence and even the
[ Page 10267 ]
murder rate have declined tremendously.

Assistant Commissioner MacRae will be missed. I'm certain the legacy he has created towards successfully fighting crime in Surrey will live on. Please join me in thanking Fraser MacRae for his outstanding career in fighting crime and for making British Columbia a safer place to live and in sending our best wishes on his retirement.

I'd also like to wish everyone in the House and throughout B.C. a happy St. Patrick's Day on Saturday.

KAREN BARDEN AND TEACHER-LIBRARIANS

S. Hammell: Today I rise in the House to speak about one of my constituents who goes beyond the call of duty as a teacher. For the past 35 years Karen Barden has been a teacher-librarian, and like many teachers, her career has become her passion. Let's face it. School libraries are not particularly cool places for kids to hang out, but Karen's library definitely has lots of that cool factor.

For the past 23 years at Johnston Heights Secondary in Surrey, Karen's dedication has created one of the best school libraries in this province. She has developed a popular library media and technology class that this year alone has over 100 student librarian volunteers.

With school libraries facing funding challenges and students turning to the Internet, Karen has done a lot of work in order to excite students about reading. She has initiated nights to turn off the TV and read, and also launched a "Read" poster campaign, featuring staff relaxing with their favourite book.

We've been hearing about bringing 21st-century technology into classrooms. Throughout Karen's career she has piloted many new technologies — in the '80s, CD-ROM technology; later, laser discs; and most recently video streaming. For the last few years she has spent extra time managing an award-winning website, created with the help of her wonderful son Brett, containing 1,000 educational resources based on the needs of the curriculum.

After 35 wonderful years the Surrey school district will be losing Karen, as she will be retiring at the end of the school year. I would like the House to join me in thanking Karen Barden and every other teacher who goes above and beyond the call of duty for the students of our province.

WORLD DOWN SYNDROME DAY

R. Lee: This year marks the seventh anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day, a day celebrated in over 60 countries across the globe. It's held on the 21st of March because an extra copy of chromosome 21 is a trait which is unique to people with Down syndrome.

The condition affects approximately one out of every 733 births and is the most common cause of human birth defects. The condition was first identified as a distinct form of mental disability in the late 19th century. Ever since, people with Down syndrome have been marginalized by society. Some have even supported childhood plastic surgery to lessen physical characteristics of the condition as a way to reduce social stigma.

World Down Syndrome Day has become a powerful tool for raising awareness of the struggle facing people with Down syndrome. This year marks the first time ever that the United Nations is officially recognizing and celebrating the day.

Throughout its seven-year history World Down Syndrome Day has helped create a worldwide community which provides a voice for people with Down syndrome. Through this community, advocates have come together to promote inclusiveness and understanding and have rallied together to change the world's perception of people with this condition.

[1350]

This year the Down Syndrome Research Foundation and the Lower Mainland Down Syndrome Society organized a 167-kilometre skywalk across the Lower Mainland with a devoted father, Howie English. I encourage everyone to come to the finish line celebration in Pitt Meadows on March 21 and make a donation to support this cause.

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: We are joined by a good friend and constituent of mine, Horst Sander, in the gallery. Horst used to beThe CEO of Northwood Timber has been a tremendous advocate for the forest industry over the years, and I'm very proud to call him my friend.

Welcome, Horst.

I ask the House to please welcome Horst Sander.

Oral Questions

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE
WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

A. Dix: Today 25 post-secondary presidents — presidents of universities, of colleges and of institutes — wrote to the Minister of Advanced Education strongly criticizing the government's cuts to training and post-secondary education during a time of skill shortages.

Yesterday we learned that the minister, on the private side, despite her role as a regulator of private post-secondary education, enabled her colleague the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to improperly share correspondence involved in a Province investigation about a company which is under her regulation. The purpose
[ Page 10268 ]
could only have been to provide some protection for a political ally.

How can students and the public have confidence in the minister or her colleague when they show such blatant preferential treatment to a company they regulate?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I want all members in this House to know exactly what happened. On Monday I became aware of an article that was written in the Province newspaper. In that article they indicated that a representative from Eminata was in receipt of a copy of an e-mail that originated from a reporter that had been sent to my Advanced Education communications department.

The reporter had asked for a response to some questions regarding a private post-secondary institution. An e-mail was sent back to the reporter, with a response to those questions for the article. So just to be clear, that is the e-mail that is in question.

After finding out about this — and in the newspaper — I did take steps to find out what exactly had happened. So later that day I was advised that a printout of the e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. That was done by my ministerial assistant on February 20, and I was not aware of that, nor did I direct that.

I have since learned that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism passed it on to a representative from Eminata. That was wrong. Yesterday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism acknowledged his error in judgment. He has apologized for that.

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

A. Dix: Specifically to the minister, then, because the minister said in response yesterday that no rules were broken. The only way that's possible is if no rules existed for Liberal cabinet ministers.

In this case we have to ask why her office provided this e-mail at all to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Had he divined its existence? Had he conjured it up? I don't think so. It was passed on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism because of the political links between the minister and the company in question. That's what the minister's office did.

Can the minister explain why her office provided that letter, that e-mail, to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and, further, whether she thinks, given the regulatory role of her office, the actions of her office were proper?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, clearly the actions of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism were not proper. The minister of state offered his sincere apology for that yesterday. This morning he offered me his resignation from cabinet. What he did was not illegal, but it did show a very clear lack of judgment. It was the wrong thing to do, and he has resigned.

I want to put this in context, though, because what he did was not illegal, although it was wrong. It showed a lack of judgment, and he resigned. It is very, very different from what some other people in this House are alleged to have done. He did not forge a memo in an effort to try and derail an RCMP criminal investigation. He nonetheless has done the honourable thing today, and he has stepped aside from cabinet.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

A. Dix: This e-mail was shared by the office of the Minister of Advanced Education.
[ Page 10269 ]
You know, unlike the Premier, I appreciate, in this case, that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism did the right thing. So given that he has done the right thing, I don't think I will continue to press questions about his conduct.

The question here is: why did Minister of Advanced Education, who has the regulatory responsibility here for this private agency, pass it on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism? What was the purpose of that? Why did they do it? What other reason could that have been passed on by the minister's office for, except that it was a political ally of the government? Can the Premier explain, can the minister explain why that was done and why their office, which has regulatory responsibility here, behaved so improperly?

Hon. C. Clark: Ministers of executive council do often share information with each other. We require that it be kept confidential amongst us. That's part of the understanding. It's part of the privilege accorded to cabinet ministers.

This cabinet minister did not live up to that expectation, and that's why he has done the right thing. He has resigned. He did not do something illegal. He didn't forge any documents. But he did share information inappropriately. He has resigned from his cabinet duties as of this morning. I would say he did absolutely the right thing.

M. Mungall: There is no doubt this is a very serious matter. Clearly, the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism has recognized that with his resignation. But it is important that the public know how the Liberals conduct themselves when one of their donors is being investigated by the media.

The question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: why did her staff pass the e-mail on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, and why did he pass it onto the CEO of Eminata Group?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, cabinet ministers routinely share information with each other. We often do that at the cabinet table, and we do it in myriad other ways. That is one of the privileges that is accorded to cabinet ministers. That is entirely proper.

What was not proper was that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism should have shared any information from within government with individuals outside government in this case. It was not proper. He did the honourable thing. He has stepped aside from his duties, and I guarantee you he won't be coming back to run for leader.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1400]

M. Mungall: As I said, this is a very serious matter. It puts into question the Liberals' ability to respect the public's interest.

We have an e-mail sent by a journalist looking into a large number of complaints by students at private post-secondary institutions run by Eminata Group. He finds some information about the owner that is concerning and asks the Minister of Advanced Education about the matter in writing. Somehow that e-mail finds its way to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Out of all the cabinet ministers, he is the minister who received that e-mail.

Why was he the minister that received that e-mail, and why did he pass it on to Eminata's CEO?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll answer that question again for the member and say this. What the member did was inappropriate. It was not criminal. It was not information that was concocted or passed along in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation. It was not created out of thin air in order to try and derail a criminal investigation. It was information that was passed on inappropriately — not illegally but inappropriately. It shouldn't have happened.

He has taken full responsibility for it. He has apologized for it. He has gone one step further, and he has resigned. He's done the right thing.

I know that members across prepared their questions for question period well in advance, before they knew that the member had resigned. But I would suggest…. Before they ask me the same question again and again for the next 20 minutes, I'll warn them. They're going to get the same answer.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Advanced Education has said that her ministerial assistant passed on an electronic message to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Finance. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Labour. Didn't pass it on to the Minister of Health. Passed it on to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.

Now, in a parliamentary democracy with an executive council, ministerial accountability starts and ends at the top. If a staff member in the minister's office gave that document to the minister of multiculturalism, knowing full well that the Eminata Group had given $14,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party, then surely the question is: what is that minister still doing in cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: The member in question who shared the information did so inappropriately, and he has resigned.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The ministerial assistant, a staff member in the office of the body that regulates this private post-secondary institution, deliberately and with intent passed on information that could materially affect the ability of that office to continue to effectively regulate the private institution.

Again, who's responsible for that? Is it the member for Delta South? No. Is it the member for Peace River South? No. It's the Minister of Advanced Education. That's the person responsible for regulating private post-secondary institutions, and her office gave information to another minister that made it into the hands of that institution.

Surely, she sees the ethical blind spot there. Why doesn't she follow the lead of the minister of multiculturalism and head for the door?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. Ministers do need to be accountable for their conduct. Sharing that information externally was wrong. You know, in our government we do expect both ministers and staff to behave honourably, and in this case the minister who acted inappropriately has done so.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Advanced Education has a responsibility to respect the public's interest in her role as a regulator of these post-secondary institutions. Now, the minister has admitted that she'd already responded to the e-mail. She'd dealt with it. There is no purpose that is evident to any of us as to why she would then hand it along to another cabinet minister — very specifically, the minister that she handed it to.

Now, the thread here would certainly have to be the fact that the Eminata Group has contributed large donations to the B.C. Liberals, so it would be in their interests to try and give that organization a heads-up.

We've already seen one minister do the right and honourable thing here today over this and step down, so the
[ Page 10270 ]
Minister of Advanced Education, in her responsibility and the fact that she has not stood up for the public interests of British Columbia, needs to tender her resignation today as well.

Hon. C. Clark: Ministers have the privilege of sharing information with each other. There is absolutely nothing untoward about that. The minister who shared it inappropriately with an external party has resigned. He did it absolutely without the knowledge of the minister that this member speaks of, and I think he did, in resigning, absolutely the right thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Advanced Education, who is responsible for regulating post-secondary institutions in the province, has a responsibility to the public interest, has allowed information to be leaked — vital information. We've already seen one cabinet minister do the appropriate thing because of this leak.

It is her responsibility to take the next steps that she needs to take and do the same honourable thing, because of this leak to a donor. This is a direct leak to a donor. Would she please tender her resignation today?

Hon. C. Clark: The information was shared. It was inappropriately shared. The minister has resigned. The actions of the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism occurred without the knowledge of the Minister of Advanced Education. I think I've answered that question quite fully three or four times now. I look forward to many more of exactly the same question in the next, oh, 20 minutes.

B. Ralston: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education: can she explain to the House her understanding of ministerial responsibility?

Hon. C. Clark: I think it's quite clear. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism has resigned. He certainly understands the meaning of ministerial responsibility, as we all do on this side of the House. I thank him for doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member as a supplemental.

B. Ralston: My question is again to the Minister of Advanced Education. She's the one who needs to explain herself here in the House today. What is her understanding of ministerial responsibility?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I already answered that question.

SAFETY OF
VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE TERMINAL

S. Chandra Herbert: Yesterday in the House the minister responsible for PavCo questioned the safety of the new $21 million floatplane terminal. Later in the day he said in an interview that there are "indications that there is a potential for a safety hazard. On that basis, it would be inappropriate for us to require Harbour Air to move until we're convinced the facility is safe."

There are still two floatplane companies operating out of that terminal, a terminal that the minister now says is not safe enough for Harbour Air to use. Will the minister explain to this House how it's safe for them to use the terminal, not for Harbour Air?

Hon. P. Bell: Every pilot is ultimately responsible for their aircraft. Each pilot has the responsibility to determine whether or not the facility that they are using, the aircraft that they are using, is safe for passenger service. That's something I learned as a private pilot. The pilots that are continuing to use the floatplane facility are actually flying aircraft that are of a different type. They've assessed that that facility is suitable for that particular aircraft type.

[1410]

The Ausenco Sandwell report indicates there are challenges with other aircraft types that need to be addressed. We're waiting for a fuller report. It would be inappropriate for PavCo or for any government — and for the member opposite, for that matter — to require movement of aircraft to a facility that still has question marks as to its safety.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, nearly a year ago the minister who's just answered this question was urging that all floatplanes go to that terminal, which he now says may be unsafe for Harbour Air. Harbour Air, for the House's knowledge, operates nearly 95 percent of the floatplane flights in and out of the Vancouver harbour.

PavCo specified what kinds of docks and the setup the new terminal would have. They demanded a fancy facility, which increased costs. The government demanded a facility as it stands now, a facility which doesn't work for 95 percent of the flights. The government is now being sued.

My question to the minister is: why would his Liberal government approve a floatplane dock design that doesn't work for the majority of floatplanes in B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: This government, PavCo, does not design docks. That's done by professionals. The company Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre did the design criteria for the docks. We're reviewing that process. But I am absolutely sure of this. I am absolutely sure that the mem-
[ Page 10271 ]
ber opposite would not advocate that aircraft be put in a risk as to their safety in a facility. I'm sure that the member opposite would not require that move if there was some concern as to the safety of the aircraft and the passengers on them.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS
AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

D. Routley: Yesterday we heard about workers in Surrey who were losing their jobs because the Forest Minister 86 times overruled his own timber export advisory committee. Let me talk today about Nanaimo.

Coastland mill in Nanaimo planned to add another production line, employing dozens more workers, but they couldn't get logs. When the log buyer at Coastland looked for wood, he was told there was none. He went to the log export market, and he discovered 230,000 cubic metres of wood headed out of B.C., most of it in trucks driving right past the front door of his own mill.

Why is the minister refusing to ensure that those B.C. logs are creating jobs in Nanaimo?

Hon. S. Thomson: The continuing debate on log exports. Let's look what the NDP's answer is to log exports. Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition during his leadership campaign. "I am calling for a major increase in provincial fees levied on raw logs harvested on Crown lands for export and a new provincial sales or earnings tax on logs exported from private forest lands."

That's the NDP's answer. Taxes are their only solution. That's their approach — adding costs, making the industry more uncompetitive by adding major, major fee increases, new taxes. That's their approach to log exports.

On this side of the House we're working towards a balanced policy that respects both domestic mills and jobs here for the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The NDP's answer is to defend the public interest. Balance is not a 550 percent increase in raw log exports. Balance is not B.C. mills starved of fibre. Balance is not the loss of B.C. jobs because of this government's log export policies.

Coastland is a mill that did everything right. They're a small business, the engine of our economy. They invested in their own processes and made plans to create new jobs in my constituency, in Nanaimo, for my neighbours, only to be shut out because that minister 86 times overruled his own committee and decided arbitrarily to ship logs out of the province.

[1415]

Can that Forests Minister explain to independent companies like Coastland how they can operate when the rules are arbitrary and entirely up to the discretion of the minister?

Hon. S. Thomson: I find it really puzzling when the members opposite continue to rail against log exports when they know that log exports keep mills open, keep jobs in their communities all across the province.

Let's just use an example, Coast Tsimshian Resources up in the Terrace area. It's a First Nations company that has built a business with 260 direct jobs, contributing over $30 million per year in economic activity into the community and one that has taken the community from 90 percent unemployment to full employment within the community.

I wonder if the member asking the question has talked to the member for the Skeena riding — whether he agrees with adding taxes, adding levies and restricting log exports that would impact that First Nations community's ability to provide jobs for that community.

N. Macdonald: Well, that took three days to come, but that's a real stretch.

You know, there is a law. There has been a law since 1906, and the law reads that logs are not supposed to be exported if there is domestic need. Instead of following the law, the minister 86 times chose to override the advisory committee. That has implications for Teal-Jones, implications that start this weekend. That has implications for Coastland.

Now, the right thing to do legally and, I would think, economically is that if there are mills that can take B.C. logs and create B.C. jobs, that is what should happen. That's the NDP policy.

Maybe the minister of lost jobs could stand up and explain what B.C. Liberal policy really is.

Hon. S. Thomson: I know the members opposite are fundamentally against log exports. We hear that clearly. They ask if we've been talking to mill owners and mill managers. I wonder if they have been. Let's look at a couple of other comments.

"Without the ability to export timber to the world markets, these opportunities will evaporate. Domestic log prices will not support the cost in these areas." That's Corby Lamb, president of Coast Capacity Forest Management.

From Chief Richard Harry of the Xwémalhkwu First Nation: "We are planning to grow our forestry business over the next five years through forest tenure and forest land acquisition. An increase in log exports is essential to ensure that we remain profitable while creating additional jobs for our company, for industry contractors and for forest product companies working in our traditional territory."

The balanced policy we have…. This is a policy that's creating jobs in all communities. I wonder if the member for North Coast would agree that adding excessive taxes,
[ Page 10272 ]
increased taxes and excessive fees is a policy that would assist those communities in ensuring that they build the capacity in their First Nations, build those jobs in their communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: What an outrageous statement. I've walked with that member through the massive industrial complex that was there before this government took over. It is empty. It is massive — one plant completely removed; the other sitting idle, never, never to produce again.

[1420]

This minister comes in and 86 times between December and January decides to override the proper system. He decides to override expert advice and allow raw logs to go out when Teal-Jones could have provided real jobs, when Coastland could have provided jobs, would have added additional lines.

I have a question for the minister. What is the policy now? What is the policy on raw logs? You say you're looking for a balance. You are sending out 5.5 million cubic metres in a year. What are you keeping here on the coast for jobs? What are you doing to make sure that people in Surrey, people in Richmond, people in Nanaimo who could use those logs to create jobs actually get the opportunity to do it?

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite are wrong when they talk about job losses. In fact, it's just the opposite. Let me be clear. Over 18 mills reopened because of building…. And 9,000 jobs, $9.95 billion in exports as a result of the domestic market.

Exports are 10 percent of the total harvest. The overall policy is providing those jobs here in our community. That's why we're focused on job creation. It's not just the 9,000 jobs that that policy is providing; it's the 9,000 new jobs we've created in the last month for our B.C. jobs plan and 39,000 net new jobs over the last year as part of the focus on job creation that I proudly support in this government.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS OF
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996 c.287).

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

And further that Mr. Bennett be appointed to replace Mr. Les as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO APPOINT AN OMBUDSPERSON

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an Ombudsperson, pursuant to section 2 (2) of the Ombudsperson Act (RSBC 1996 c. 340) and the said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Mr. Les (Convenor), Ms. Barnett, Mr. Howard, Ms. Elmore and Ms. Karagianis]

[1425]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will do committee stage of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, where we're starting, I believe, on section 14. We'll continue with that. In section A, the
[ Page 10273 ]
Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On section 14 (continued).

R. Austin: We are on section 14.

The minister has stated that classes such as drama and band will be the kinds of classes that will be designated as a prescribed category of classes that may exceed 30 students. Can the minister also explain to the House whether the minister anticipates any other types of classes that will be designated as being in a prescribed category?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

There will be further work as we develop the regulation around the area of classes that could be larger-designated or smaller-designated. But examples based on, obviously, hearing the advice and evidence of others….

The kinds of classes that tend to be larger are band and choir classes and, I guess, on occasion theatre as well. I had a recent meeting with the B.C. Teachers Federation technology group, and they make a strong argument that for classes like woodworking and metalworking, the shop classes where students are working with power tools, arguably there should be a smaller class limit there.

Again, that is the kind of thing that we'll be looking at in the consultation which will follow passage of this bill.

R. Austin: I would like to also commend that presentation made on behalf of technology students. I myself was an educational assistant in classes such as metalwork and shop, where it became very impractical for the teacher — who was responsible, of course, for every child in that classroom — to essentially maintain a safe classroom, particularly if, in addition to the number of kids in that class, there are kids who have been identified as having special needs and very often don't have the one-on-one support with an educational assistant or, in some cases, where the educational assistants who are asked to come in and help kids with special needs themselves don't know how to use the equipment.

So for the teachers it's like having a special needs child and an adult who requires adequate supervision to supervise that child, so I would hope that that happens.

Just to get this correct, then: all of this kind of thinking will be done through regulation after this. How long will that regulation process take? Is it going to be given up to the mediator to decide all that, or is that something that the minister is going to prescribe on his own decisions?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer would be, first of all, that the work will be undertaken by the Ministry of Education. We expect probably about one month in terms of the period required to look at this issue and to bring a draft regulation to the table.

I do want to just say further, to support what the Education critic has said, that I also found very useful the discussion with the BCTF technology association on the issue of shop classes. I think one of the areas that we agreed that we would further explore is the issue of providing a skills module to educational assistants who might want to be a generalized support in a shop class.

Again, in this case we would be looking at ensuring that rather than being a potential hazard in a shop class if they don't understand the operation of power tools, we can, in fact, with a skills module take educational assistants and make them a real asset in the shop. Again, this is another example of the kind of thing that we can do through the learning improvement fund and the upscaling of educational assistants.

R. Austin: Could I also ask the minister: is there going to be any taking into account the number of classes that have split classes? Again, that makes a huge difference to the ability of a teacher to have adequate learning conditions. Is there any thought as to what will happen in terms of the number of split classes there are and whether this will affect the number of kids in that class or whether it will affect the number of children who have been identified going into a split class?

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: Interesting question. Again, the member knows this, but generally, decisions around split classes — i.e., a 1 and 2 class put together or a 2-3-4 class…. Generally, these are school-based decisions, and they are often issues that confront rural and remote schools because there are not sufficient numbers of grade 1 students, grade 2 students, grade 3 students to have independent classes. It's not typically going to be a dilemma because generally the numbers are smaller anyways.

But to the member's point, in theory, one could come up against either a hard cap or class maximums, depending on what the splits are. So this is an important point to note for the record, and I appreciate the member asking the question, because it should be put on the record. In the instance of a kindergarten–grade 1 split, as an example, we would defer to the class cap for kindergarten. If it was a 3-4 split, we would refer to the hard cap for grade 3 versus the class maximum for grade 4. In a
[ Page 10274 ]
2-3-4 split, again, it would be the rules that would apply to the youngest students in that split.

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for that answer. In reference to the learning improvement fund, the minister has indicated that now there is not just a potential but is probably going to be an increase to this fund, of approximately $30 million or $33 million, depending on whether it was $10 million saved today or $11 million saved today.

Because the lift is designed to have the lowest amount of money in it in year 1 and then increasing year 2 and year 3, is it fair to assume that the savings that have been made recently will be applied to the first-year lift, to take it from $30 million to, say, $60 million in year 1? Is that what the minister's intention is?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, that is our hope, subject to a battery of accountants and lawyers agreeing with that.

R. Austin: I think this the last question on this section. Just to be sure…. I heard the debate back and forth with other members. When there are increases in class size beyond 30, and the minister has outlined the various options that a teacher can choose — one, I guess, out of three or four — presumably that increase will not come out of the school budgets but will come from the lift. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, it would come out of the regular district funding.

R. Austin: One more question on section 14, and that is on the notion of if a teacher decides to choose to take the incremental salary increase. I know that it's considerably bigger in elementary than in secondary. Is the minister not concerned about the fact that this is somehow entering into a sort of fee-for-service in our educational system? It's like we have in the health care system where we go see our doctor, and the number of patients that a doctor sees in a day is the number of people that he or she bills to the system.

[1440]

That is not a model that we have ever had in our educational system. We have block funding and a teacher teaches, and they go and teach. Is there not a concern that by introducing this model of payment structure, or potential payment structure, we are entering a place where teachers are going to suddenly be faced with: "Do I accept a pay raise for the extra child?"

I think that that is a very dark place to be entering. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that kind of discussion — if it ever happened in the ministry.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a very important question, and I want to give a thoughtful and full answer to the question.

No, I am not concerned about it. In the first instance, the decision to go over 30…. It would be exceptional to go over 30. Again, I've used the example of Coquitlam, where they have zero over 30, and Kamloops, where they have only a few classes, and they tend to be band and related classes that are over 30. So it's only in exceptional circumstances that one would see a class over 30.

Secondly, there has to be a consultation process among all the educational partners before, ultimately, the principal and the superintendent give their stamp that this is an educationally appropriate environment for student learning.

The case where this might happen would be…. It's the sort of Telkwa, Sicamous — the small town where maybe in one instance the class is 28, but in another instance it's 31. You don't want to have to tell the 31st student that they can't attend that class or that they have to get bussed or that they have to do it through distance learning or something.

So it is a matter of accommodating the student, but it is only in exceptional circumstances where that will happen.

Again, the numbers are pretty small here. It's not going to happen often. The numbers we're using are based on the Dorsey arbitration. As professionals, teachers can decide whether they want to take prep time, to take professional development contributions, to take it as a salary increment or they want to do a combination thereof. But it's only in those exceptional circumstances that we will see that.

This is not something that concerns me. There will be a built-in incentive here for the school district not to have classes over 30, because there will be a small cost — nevertheless, small — that will, if for no other reason, discourage them from wanting to have a class larger than 30.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

R. Austin: Could the minister please explain the purpose of section 15?

Hon. G. Abbott: Probably the most effective way…. I expect the critic may want to explore this more fully than my first answer, because it is an important piece.

[1445]

It involves the deletion of what would generally be termed the Bill 33 portions of the School Act, as amended. So I would draw the member's attention to the section entitled "Organization of classes — consultation at the beginning of the school year," which is 76.2.

It reads: "In each school year, the principal of a school must, within 15 school days after the school opening day set out in the school calendar applicable to the school for the school year…the consent of or consult with the teacher…consult with the school planning council..." etc.
[ Page 10275 ]

As I think we've made clear earlier on, we want to move away from that Bill 33 model. Every time I have met with the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and it has been many times, invariably, they pretty much beg me to find some solution to this. The Bill 33 approach, again, while undoubtedly well-intentioned…. There's no question about that.

What occurred, though, as a consequence of that, was that a lot of the school class composition issues were pushed into the first weeks of September and the first weeks of the school year, and basically, as the principals would describe it, it buried them in paperwork at a time when it was really critically important for them to be visiting classrooms, to be working with teachers, to be building the collaborative culture in the school.

But instead of that, they were obliged under these points to be focusing work that really should be done all year round into a shorter period of time in the school year.

So we've tried to take into account the now longstanding concerns of the principals and vice-principals with this approach and tried to move to a model that would see us, particularly, starting to focus on class composition in May and June in the year prior to the September start.

R. Austin: But this section also removes the reporting process that enables school districts and parents to be able to see how their school district was doing and how their class was doing in terms of class size and composition. Is that not correct?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it's fabulous that we have committee stage debate, so I can learn all about the education system in British Columbia.

We have gone, the member may know, to a complete open data system. One of the foundations of that data system is an October reporting of class-size data as of September 30. Every one of the 1,600 schools in the province of B.C. will be providing to the ministry a report just like the one here. It's entitled "School Class Size and Composition." In this particular case it has a coded number and then Silver Star Elementary, which I suspect is up in Vernon.

What it shows are the divisions — 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. — kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, the size of the class, whether they're split classes, all of that, the total numbers in that class and then the number of students who are entitled to an IEP, total number of gifted students, total number of English language learners, ELLs.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I did. Thank you for reminding me of that.

This will be the kind of report that will be generated. It's comprehensive and will be updated, I presume, annually.

R. Austin: I think it is important. You know, if we're moving to this new model, it's very important for everybody to have access to seeing what the results are going to be. We've had this debate back and forth, and the minister thinks that there's going to be an improvement. That's why he's called it the Education Improvement Act.

Many of us on this side think that there will not necessarily be an improvement and, particularly on the issue of composition, by removing the cap on having three children identified with an education plan, that in fact it's going to make matters a lot worse for our kids.

With that in mind, I would like to move the following amendment:

[Section 15, by adding the text shown as underlined:

15 Sections 76.2 and 76.4 to 76.7 are repealed and further section 76.3 is amended by repealing subsection (8) (a) (i).]

On the amendment.

R. Austin: Speaking to this amendment, the purpose of this amendment…. Notwithstanding what the minister has just told us in the House in regard to the reporting process, it is sometimes very challenging for regular people, for parents, to understand how to go to various websites to find out information that we think is very important for every parent in British Columbia to have access to.

We think that it is important to retain the reporting measures that were laid out to give some accountability and some transparency to the results of these changes that are going to be made in Bill 22.

I'd like to begin my comments just by quoting from the previous Minister of Education, the member for Prince George–Mount Robson, who, when she was speaking about public reporting and consultation on class size, said the following:

"We also committed to requiring annual public reports on class size, and we acted on that. In fact, in February we released the first-ever report on class sizes in British Columbia public schools.

"The report was the most comprehensive information on class size and composition ever collected and published in this province, and it showed that many classes were a reasonable size but that some were not. The report also showed that 15 school districts were not in compliance with the provincial average class size legislation in at least one category. Clearly, there was a demonstrated need for a mechanism to enforce class size legislation."

[1455]

That, of course, has now been removed, but nonetheless….

"The school principal must consult with the school planning council on class organization within 15 days of the start of the school year. A superintendent must also verify that the school district is in compliance with class size legislation and submit a report on the organization of all classes to the school board and the district parent advisory council on or before October 1 of each year.

"The school board must then review the superintendent's report at a public meeting on or before October 15 each year and then
[ Page 10276 ]
send a copy of that report to the Minister of Education. The school board will be able to decide whether to accept the report, or they may instruct the superintendent to revise the report. In that case, the report must be returned to the board within 15 days."

We think, on this side of the House, that it is extremely important that we still continue to have this public reporting out at the school district level so that parents who may not otherwise know how to go to various websites can find out this information.

The purpose of this amendment, of course, is to retain the accountability measures provided through public reporting of class composition, and the amendment adds wording to the current provision in order to keep 76.3 of the School Act, which is otherwise removed by Bill 22.

The amendment also provides for a consequential amendment that removes the requirement of a superintendent to require a principal to consult with teachers under sections of the School Act that are removed by Bill 22.

I'm going to just spend a few minutes talking about why this is important, and I'm going to use as an example my own school district. Every year there has been a reporting out so that people in school district 82 can have an understanding of where our school district stands in terms of class size and composition, and it is a very useful tool.

For example, what we can discover…. From last year's report that was published October 1, 2011, we can see that on the issue of class size, at the elementary school level we were doing fantastically well. In fact, there were no classes in school district 82 that were over the class size of 30, between the elementary grades. However, that was not the case in terms of the higher grades, where there were almost 30 classes in excess of 30.

My school district is not a school district that has been overly challenged with class sizes, although there are lots of individual cases. It hasn't been one that has been overly challenged with class sizes because we've actually had a population decrease in northwest B.C., as the minister would well know. The challenge in school district 82 — and this is why this is so crucial for people to have access to this information — is on the number of kids with individual education plans. In that regard, the numbers are extremely challenging in school district 82.

We think that by putting in this amendment, every parent around British Columbia will understand what is going on directly in their school district. Let's just look at the number of students, from my report in school district 82 on classes that have more than three children in them with an individual education plan. This is going to grow, obviously, because Bill 22 actually removes the maximum number of children with an IEP, so we could end up legally having four, five, six, seven. Things could actually get much worse, is what I am trying to say.

I want to point out, as I read these figures out, that even while we had class-size and composition rules here for the last five years, since 2006 when Bill 33 was passed, the reality is — and of course, the minister has already alluded to this — that for the last several years that law has been flouted each and every day thousands of times because we weren't able to maintain the law. That's very troubling and I think, in part, has led to some of the reasoning that the minister has made today for essentially abandoning those regulations.

Now, we've had a debate back and forth about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. We will continue to not agree on that issue. We think that maintaining class size and composition is important, but for the purposes of this amendment, here's the reason why we think it's important to report out. We need to be able to see whether things are getting worse rather than improving.

[1500]

In the Kitimat area last year the number of students was 19 students over the three in each class. Ten classrooms had those 19 students over. In the Hazelton area there were four classrooms. In Thornhill, just outside Terrace, there were seven classrooms. In Terrace itself there were 35 elementary classes last year that had more than three kids with IEPs. What does that tell us? It tells us that in spite of Bill 33, we were failing many of our children in not having the correct supports in the classroom.

I'm just going to make note of one. The minister…. Obviously, it's to his advantage when he brings up an example, but I'm just going to pick one here and show what is happening at a community school in Terrace. This is quite extraordinary. This is a split-grade class. This is happening right now, as we're speaking. Right now there are, in a split 5-6 class, 11 students with IEPs — 11 students with an individual education plan — out of 22.

Now, what does that tell you? How can any teacher…? I don't know who this teacher is, but how is even a teacher with 20, 25 years experience going to cope with a split class with 11 children with individual education plans?

We need to have this information. It needs to be public. It needs to be transparent. I was just pointing out, while the minister was chatting to the Opposition House Leader, that I'm just using an example in Terrace, as we speak, of one split 5-6 class with 11 children with IEPs. That's going to take an awful lot from the learning improvement fund to improve that classroom.

I'm still sticking on Terrace. A 6-7 split with seven IEPs. A different school — another 6-7 split with seven children with IEPs. A grade 5-6 split with nine individuals with education plans.

You know, when you look at these kinds of statistics, first of all, it's important for everyone to know that they're there, because we want to see whether we get better or worse. But in all honesty, I'm very concerned that when you see these kinds of figures…. I think it will probably be worse for rural school districts than it will be for urban school districts because, as we've debated earlier in this debate, there is simply less capacity to do the kinds of fixes necessary to help the kids and support
[ Page 10277 ]
the kids with IEPs.

So what's happening, really, is in many instances, as you get further away from an urban centre, I would argue that the support systems aren't in place to give the same quality of education that you would get in an urban centre. I think that's a generalization that I would make.

Certainly, when you look at the reporting out from school district 82, I think the minister would have to agree that this is a perfect example of a school district that's in serious trouble, especially in terms of giving support to children with special needs.

Now, I should point out, in fairness to what the minister said earlier, that school district 82 is not an average school district. I know that the minister's staff has spent a lot of time looking at all the data and coming up with averages. This is a school district that probably has twice the average of children with special needs in it. But clearly, when you've got classes that have 11, seven, seven and six children with individual education plans and you have a school district that's challenged with having a school population that has a history of…. Let's face it. Let's call it oppression — that's what it was.

We have a large number of families of aboriginal descent whose families have a history of children being removed back through the ages, and of course, they have major challenges in terms of supporting their kids because their experiences in the school system when they were young were horrific. That's just something that we will have to work through as we go through the generations.

Anyway, the reason for this amendment is to keep this reporting process as open and accountable and transparent, and we think that having a website that's very specialized is not the place to do it. We think that the superintendent should be the one who each year reports out publicly at the school board level so that that information is given through community newspapers and all the parents in their various communities can see what is going on.

We also think it is very important because now we are moving away…. A lot of the things that were protected under Bill 33 are now scrapped. They're gone. So it becomes even more important to make sure that we have this reporting out so that parents can gauge what has happened in their school districts.

I'm going to now cede the floor and allow other members to comment, if they want to, to this amendment.

[1505]

M. Karagianis: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment and would strongly ask that the minister and the government side of the House consider this amendment and that they give some serious thought to supporting it.

I would like to talk a little bit about the discourse that I've heard throughout the debate on this bill, and certainly as we've gone through the committee stage here. It seems to me that, at this stage, removing accountability, which ostensibly…. Bill 22 removes a number of accountability measures, and this amendment would restore those.

I think it's really imperative, at this time, that we do talk about accountability and that we ensure there's more accountability, rather than less, within the school system.

I mean, this was a primary promise by the Premier of this province — that there would be more openness and accountability of this government to the public and to families and to, in this case, students and school teachers. We have seen less accountability. So at this particular time, with this amendment, I think it's really important that we give serious consideration to this and that all members of the House support it.

When I look at the issue of superintendents having the ability to have that accountability, to be able to prepare reporting for class size and composition to the local public meeting of their school boards, this is an important part of accountability mechanisms that government owes to the public and that the public should consider as a right rather than a privilege.

In fact, when you strip away accountability measures in Bill 22, you are stripping away the rights of parents and families and students and teachers to provide their very best educational outcomes for young people.

In my particular school district there are a large number of classes that have more than 30 students in them. This is not an abnormality. It looks like this is the new normal within the school system — to have these large classes and to have growing numbers of children who require IEPs that put extraordinary burden on the classrooms.

I have received numerous letters from students. I've got some from teachers and parents, but I've been particularly moved from the letters I've received from students within my own school district and the very compelling, profound, wise, savvy perception of students around how class size and composition has affected their educational outcomes and how it will affect the future of their educational outcomes.

When students write to me in grade 11 and say, "I have spent a good number of years of the school system in overcrowded classrooms, in classrooms where there were not enough support systems in place for those who needed special needs or special attention, and my education has been compromised…."

Students say to me, in these letters: "I am not getting the education I deserve, and I am not getting the opportunities that I deserve in my life because the education system has been compromised."

Students say to me: "I rush to classes because I'm hoping I'll be among the first to get a seat so I don't have to sit on the ledge at the back of the room" or "I rush to class because there are not enough textbooks to go around" or "I sit in classrooms where there are a num-
[ Page 10278 ]
ber of special needs students who are disruptive or who require such enormous amounts of support and attention from the teacher that I'm not getting the education that I deserve."

I think that in the case of those students, they have the right and expectation, as do their families, that they will know — they will have a public accountability mechanism in place — exactly what to expect as outcomes in their own school districts or in schools that they're going into.

I think that the actions of this government throughout this bill have been very disturbing. We've continued to have what turns out to be just a straight-on ideological clash, when we can't have any kind of agreement, even on what the repercussions will be of large numbers of students requiring IEPs — on existing class resources, on the learning environment. For students who are currently in the system, I think that it's a bit tragic.

[1510]

This amendment here would go a long way to at least putting some minor, realistic checks and balances in place into this bill.

The previous Minister of Education, as we have canvassed in this House, was very clear around her desire to see these kinds of mechanisms in place. That was only a few years ago.

I am unconvinced at this point by listening to some of the remarks coming from the current minister as to why we would shift away from that, when that promise was made of board accountability, of superintendents' ability to report out to school districts so that families always were aware of the pressures on the system. I don't understand why those goals and ideals that were expressed in 2006 are now no longer valid.

I believe that the accountability portion of this…. If we have been unable to convince the government to reverse the portions of this bill that have left class size and composition as a continued problem and challenge for students well into the future — if we have done nothing to try and sway that course — then I would at the very least urge the government to join with this side of the House in supporting this amendment.

If we can do nothing else, if we can't correct the system or build better mechanisms in place or do better in our classrooms, then at the very least we should put an accountability mechanism in there that allows the public to see what's going on.

This government has moved further and further away from accountability to the public. This is yet one more step. I urge all members of this House to support this amendment, because I think it is a necessary step to take.

G. Coons: I'm speaking in support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Skeena. Basically, this amendment looks at what's happening with section 15. Section 15 removes the reporting requirements for annual public reporting that was brought in by Bill 33 in 2006.

The issue at hand here is that it removes requirements for the superintendent of each school district to prepare a class-size report, provide the rationale on it and to present it not only at a public meeting but to parent advisory committees. The amendment before us is putting that accountability measure back in there.

The importance of public reporting is that it's an accountability measure. It's a transparency measure. It's a due diligence measure. The importance of it can't be expressed more than with what's happened with the class-size and composition stripping that happened. School districts have to report out. They should be reporting out to parents, to the public, to teachers and to constituents.

As was commented before by the member for Skeena, coming from the north coast, it isn't class size. It's the composition, where we've got kids in there that fall in the grey matter. This amendment has to bring back the accountability measure of the school districts. I believe it does.

When we look at what has happened, the number of classes in the last…. Last year there were close to 4,000 classes over 30. But the key component of that — and we need the accountability, the reporting process — is the number of classes that have more than three special needs kids in them. Last year there were over 12,000 classes with more than three students with IEPs.

I think it's incumbent on the minister, incumbent on the government, to ensure that superintendents have the reporting aspects of that. When the bill came out previously, the previous minister, the current Minister of Justice, basically talked about: "The board is ultimately accountable to its community. The superintendent is accountable to the board."

She says in the debate when this section was brought in, with Bill 33: "We also believe that there eventually needs to be a series of accountability measures in place. People expect that." That's what this amendment does.

I do want to bring something different to the mix, and that's…. There was an arbitration done on section 76.3. I believe arbitrator Dorsey looked at alleged violations of section 76.

[1515]

The Dorsey award emphasized the importance of the consultative process set out in legislation. That's why, bringing forward this amendment, we're looking at assuring accountability, transparency and due diligence. That's what we need from our school districts to ensure parents and the public know what's happening in our classrooms.

Now, in the award…. I'm going to go to it. I'll just take a couple of minutes here. The cited paragraph set out in the Dorsey award.... This is from the award. These are quotes. "The factors to be considered by an arbitrator in reviewing a principal's decision to organize a class that
[ Page 10279 ]
exceeds the class-size and composition standard and the principal and superintendent opinions the class size is appropriate for student learning are factors that relate to transparency."

So this is an arbitration, comments by an arbitrator on this. It's all about transparency and accountability. That's why we're putting forward this amendment, and that's why I support that. The reason the class was organized as it is, and the basis of the opinions — the opinion that the class is appropriate for student learning — are very important. That's what we need.

When I look at some of the reports by school districts, they range as far as the report on this section. Some of them are very basic, but several of them outline the number of classes with more than three students with IEPs, and the reasons why. We need that to hold our education system accountable and this minister accountable. That's why we're putting forward this reasonable amendment so that we can help the minister along in this.

Another section from the Dorsey report relating to this section is:

"Transparency will be fulfilled by meeting the consultation and reporting requirements."

That's what this amendment is about — accountability, transparency and due diligence. I'm continuing in the report.

"The reason for the organization of the class involves an explanation of the alternative class organizations explored and the reason the organization in dispute was chosen. The basis for the opinions that the class is appropriate for student learning involves all the reasons and factors that led the principal and the superintendent to their opinions the class is appropriate for student learning. These may include teacher requests; class, school and district supports for the class; and the students in the class."

So we need those reasons of why class sizes are over 30 or why there's more students with special needs.

The last part, before I conclude is — and this is part of the report:

"As part of the due diligence, the superintendent must be informed about classes that exceed the class-size and composition standard with which the teacher agrees it is a class appropriate for student learning and these classes for which the teacher disagrees or did not express an opinion. Principals, superintendents, boards of education and perhaps parents need to know if teachers do not believe their classes are appropriate for student learning."

I think it is outrageous that this government is again looking at going after class size and composition and having no accountability measures, no transparency measures and not doing their due diligence. You know, it's vital that throughout the process, when classes are deemed to be at greater than 30 or a class with more than three students with IEPs, there's a rationale that goes out in the reasoning and why, as the arbitrator said, parents need to know if teachers do not believe that their classes are appropriate for student learning.

On that note, I think this is a reasonable amendment to put forward. I think that it's already been covered in arbitration — the reasons why we need to ensure that reporting out, being transparent, being accountable…. School boards and the minister doing their due diligence is required with this amendment.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. Just so that we can contextualize what we're talking about, this amendment relates to section 76.1 of the School Act. What does it effectively do, or what is it talking about? It's talking about the limits on class sizes per the act.

[1520]

It states that kindergarten classes may not have more than 22 students, that grades 1 to 3 classes may not have more than 24 students, and grades 4 to 7 classes may not have more than 30 students unless the superintendent of the schools for the district and the school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for students' learning and obtain the consent of the teacher of that class.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The requirement to obtain the consent of teachers in grades 4 to 7 classes that exceed 30 students is removed by section 14 of Bill 22 — that's what we're talking about — and the amendment here is talking about keeping that provision in. So that's what the amendment is about.

The issue, of course, also deals with grades 8 to 12, where grades 8 to 12 can exceed 30 students if the superintendent of the schools for the district and school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for student learning and consult with the teacher of that class. They need to consult with, but not obtain the consent of, the teachers.

Section 14 of Bill 22, which also relates to this amendment, proposes to remove the need to consult with high school teachers. The amendment here aims to keep it there, and to say that that consultation is important and necessary.

The limits on the number of special needs students tie into this as well. All classes may not have more than three special needs students unless the superintendent of schools for the district and school principal deem the organization of the class to be appropriate for student learning and consult with the teacher of that class. They need to consult with, but not obtain the consent of, the teacher.

Again, limits on special needs students are removed by section 14 of Bill 22, allowing that there be an unlimited number of special needs students in the classroom.

These are important issues that we're talking about. It speaks directly to the issue of class size and composition, requiring that the superintendent do some work that they're already currently doing, which I think is absolutely important for building the relationship with the teachers, and then also making sure that whatever that composition is in that classroom is going to be the optimal learning environment for the students involved.

Why else would you have the requirement to consult
[ Page 10280 ]
with teachers from the superintendents or the principals of that school? Why wouldn't you want to require that, to make sure that that work is done? Yet Bill 22, section 14, says that no, they don't need to do that.

How does that make sense for the government to put in such a section? How is that useful and helpful (a) for the teachers, (b) for the students and (c) for the parents?

It does not help anybody to do that. Why would the government do that? Why would the government put forward a section of a bill that eliminates that requirement for consultation and the need to produce reports to tell British Columbians how the government is doing on class size and composition across the districts in British Columbia?

It doesn't make any sense. So my colleague has put forward an amendment to say no. We should not take away the requirement for consultation. We should not take away the requirement for public disclosure, if you will — reports that tell us, all British Columbians, so that we know what the status is in the classrooms right now.

Why is that important? That speaks to why I support this amendment. It is important because we know that the government has been in violation of class size and composition — not one or two classes, not three or four classes, but to the tune of hundreds, of thousands. That's a lot of classes that are in violation.

In fact, the BCTF, the B.C. Teachers Federation, has actually put on the public record that there are some 10,000 classes that are under grievances right now because of the issue of class size and composition.

That is something that…. The government right now is in violation of their own law. Is that the reason why the government wants to do away with the public reporting of class size and composition, so that nobody knows when the government is in violation of their own law? Is that the purpose of section 14 of Bill 22? And to not consult with the teachers? Why wouldn't people consult with the people who are in the classroom and who have to do that work each and every day?

[1525]

When we talk about special needs, we know that children who have special needs will need additional support. We also know that in a complex classroom, where you have special needs, sometimes ESL students, sometimes gifted students….

Sometimes you have students who also have other socioeconomic challenges in the classroom that comes from the home front, but when they go to the school, they don't leave all that stuff at the door. It all comes into the classroom. The complexity of the classroom is key to make it work so that the teacher can manage that complexity in the classroom.

If you exceed the level of special needs students of three in any one classroom, then you need to make sure that there is the capacity for the teachers and the assistants in that room to manage the classroom for the benefit of every student in that classroom. To take away some of those standards and limits means that the people who will suffer from that are the very people that we say we want to have a good education system for. That would be the students.

If the teacher can't manage that particular composition of the classroom, then it doesn't serve anybody at all. So this requirement of section 14 simply doesn't make any sense.

I have here with me examples of the Vancouver school district, which is the area in which my schools are located in the city of Vancouver. Of the 179 classes…. That would be secondary schools enrolling more than 33 students, therefore in violation of the government's law right now. Of the 179 classes that exist, reported as enrolling more than 30 students, 73 classes enrol more than 33 students. So that's quite a statistic, really, to look into.

Almost a third of those classes are in violation, and the Vancouver school board says that there are 82 K-to-12 classes with more than three special needs students. So that's 82 classes in the Vancouver school district that are in violation of the government's law right now, with respect to special needs students.

Of these classes, teachers in 67 of them — that's 87 percent of them — disagree with their class-size compositions, saying that they didn't meet the learning needs of the students. That's a sampling of what is going on right now in a classroom. We need to have this information if we're to try to figure out what is going on in these classrooms and then how to address it to ensure that the optimal learning environment exists for the students and the teachers alike.

So the importance of this amendment…. I can't emphasize enough the importance of this amendment. This amendment, I should say, doesn't cost anybody any money. It does not cost the government money. It does not cost the system money. All that it does is that it calls for accountability and transparency in the system. That's what it means.

So why would the Liberal government be against this? Why would the Minister of Education be against this amendment? I don't get it. Why would, in fact, anybody in this entire Legislature be against it?

And isn't this the very issue to which the court judgment has spoken to — around the need to consult, around the need to ensure that there is that level of participation with the teachers? Isn't that good governance to engage in the practice of discussion? Isn't that the way and the path to go forward in trying to resolve conflict?

I would argue that it is. I would argue that it is a good amendment and that the government should, in fact, embark on that and that the government should listen to our critic with this constructive amendment that is being put on the floor and say: "Yes, that makes sense. It makes sense for the students. It makes sense for our teachers. It makes sense for the parents." Frankly, it makes sense for
[ Page 10281 ]
our education system.

I would urge the Minister of Education and I would urge the members of the government bench, all of them, to examine this amendment in a non-partisan way, put forward in such a way that will look to making a decision that will best address the needs of our classroom. At the end of the day, that is what's most important.

[1530]

So I would urge all members of this House to look at this amendment and what it means, and I would urge the member of the this House to rise to speak to it.

Tell me what you think about this amendment. Do you agree with it? Do you not agree with it? If you don't agree with it, why not? What is the problem with it? Why is accountability and transparency a bad thing in our education system? I would urge all members of the House to take up that task, to do that, and I'll look forward to that debate.

For myself, I am going to be supporting this amendment, and I think it's a positive way of going forward.

R. Austin: Madam Chair, my understanding is that there has been an agreement that we will vote on this amendment at five o'clock when we actually vote on the bill.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the amendment pass?

Hon. Members, I've heard that a division call has been made. We are currently operating under the time allocation motion adopted on Monday, March 12, 2012. However, I do understand there is an agreement that a standing division will be held at 4:45 p.m. on this amendment.

Section 15 stood down.

The Chair: Committee will now proceed with section 16.

E. Foster: Will the bells be rung at 4:45 to call a standing vote?

The Chair: Yes, Member, they will.

We'll move now to section 16. We can't pass section 15 if we are going to vote on an amendment later, so we'll proceed now to section 16.

On section 16.

R. Austin: Could the minister just explain the purpose of section 16?

Hon. G. Abbott: The amendment here is a minor housekeeping amendment related to the duties that a vice-principal may perform. It would simply reflect the elimination of some of the pieces in front of it.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

[1535]

R. Austin: Could the minister please explain the purpose of section 17?

Hon. G. Abbott: The change in respect of section 17 refers to section 78.1 of the School Act — that is, in respect of the extended day and year-round schooling. That provision is repealed. It was enacted by section 15 of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, also known as Bill 28, and was struck down by Justice Griffin's decision in B.C. Supreme Court.

The intent of this section was to clarify that boards have authority to set local school calendars that provide for extended day and year-round schooling.

R. Austin: The other sections that were ruled unconstitutional by Madam Justice Griffin have been put back into Bill 22, but this particular section that's been removed hasn't. Can the minister explain to us what the reason for that is? How is it different from all the sections that have been put back in?

[1540]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the repeal of section 78.1, the existing school calendar regulation exists and is permissive of boards making the changes that they may, after consultation with their citizens, believe appropriate. The section that is being deleted, we believe, is unnecessary.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

R. Austin: I think this is a very important section, and I'm sure the minister will agree. We need to go into the details of how the LIF is going to work. I guess I would like ask the minister to give a broad overview of the workings of the LIF, and then we can get into detailed questions on this.

Hon. G. Abbott: At the highest level what it does is add a section to the School Act. Just so the critic understands the flow here, 115 is entitled "Special purpose grants," 115.1 is the annual facility grant, and 115.2 will be the learning improvement fund. It fits into that section of the School Act.

As we have discussed previously, the learning improvement fund is a product of the discussions which followed from Justice Griffin's decision of April 13, 2011, in the B.C. Supreme Court. The fund was tabled as part of the
[ Page 10282 ]
process of face-to-face discussion that occurred between representatives of government and BCPSEA on one side and of the B.C. Teachers Federation on the other.

[1545]

The grant, as I've mentioned many times, is currently $165 million over three years, which we hope will become $195 million over three years — again, subject to final approvals of that. The object is to improve our management of class organization, particularly as it refers to the allocation and management of special needs resources in the classroom.

R. Austin: The minister refers to the learning improvement fund as a specific amount of money that will be used specifically to support kids with special needs. Will this funding be used to fund anything outside of special needs students, and if so, can the minister explain which areas of the school system might be supported with the learning improvement fund?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purposes of the funds are limited to classes that are challenging because of the special needs students who are within those classes.

To qualify for utilization within LIF, one would be looking at, for example, contact hours between learning assistants, as is the case with the CUPE agreements. It could be — hypothetically, because we haven't had the discussion yet — contact hours for teachers — again hypothetically, as the discussion has not occurred.

It could relate to building the knowledge and skills base of both teaching assistants and teachers. It could relate to professional development opportunities for teachers. It could add additional teachers and learning assistants or teaching assistants as well.

R. Austin: In all the cases that the minister has just mentioned, they have to be related to improving services for special needs. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

R. Austin: I'm just interested in the actual definition of the learning improvement fund. Was that a title that was put in place by the judge? How come the government made the definition of learning improvement fund? How was that determined?

Hon. G. Abbott: The name was not prescribed legally. It is a name that was chosen rather like my parents chose, at one point, George, for my name.

R. Austin: Since then they've named a very famous clothing line after you. That's quite good. Very successful, I understand.

Could I ask the minister how the dollars will be allocated to this fund each year? Now, we know at the announcement that it was initially $165 million — so $30 million this coming year, then $60 million and then $75 million. There may be an increase in this year's funding, depending on whether everything goes well in taking the savings from the three-day strike last week.

[1550]

In terms of allocating the dollars, in terms of the budget, presumably that's already decided for the next three years, irrespective of the budget that's going to be coming down, each and every year, for Education. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for the important question. There is a distinction between the way in which the dollars will be distributed this year versus how they will be distributed in years 2 and 3. In terms of the first year I'd make the member aware of 115.2(3), which reads: "Before making the first grant under subsection (2) in any fiscal year, the minister must notify each board of the amount of the grant the minister estimates will be provided to the board."

What will occur in the current year…. Obviously, it's going to vary whether it is $30 million or $60 million, but the allocation will be on the same basis in which the overall funding block goes to school districts. It's largely driven by per pupil, but it may vary depending on the other elements that tend to move funding up or down a little bit — number of students with special needs, ESL, aboriginal, climate, distances, all of that that have become things that may move the per-capita or per-student number up and down a little bit. That will be the basis on which it is distributed in the first year.

In the second and third years there will be a consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation in respect of the disbursement, and I'd refer the member to 115.2(4), which lists "(a) total student enrollment in each district; (b) the number of students in each district who are diagnosed with special needs; (c) the location of schools, communities and services in each district."

We believe that with a year of experience and in consultation with the BCTF, we can probably refine the way in which the fund is utilized. Also, the expectation when we started with $30 million, moved to $60 million and moved to $75 million was that we would learn a lot in that initial year about how most effectively to manage this fund and then have some refinements to it as we got into second and third year.

[1555]

R. Austin: In the first year the $30 million will be minus the $7.5 million that I believe is part of the CUPE contract. So it will be $23½ million that'll be distributed in the next fiscal year, if we don't get the other $30 million that's coming from the savings from the teacher action last week.

I want to ask the minister this. I understand the chal-
[ Page 10283 ]
lenges from starting in the first year, not having the time to do the consultation with all the school districts. But surely, if the purpose of this is to improve the educational outcomes of those with special needs, yet in the first year the main driver is again going to be per-pupil student funding, again that's going to really hit those districts that have a disproportionate number of children to support with special needs versus those districts that have the largest populations.

Surely, even in the first year the way that it's going to be designed to be distributed is not going to maximize its benefit to children with special needs. Once again it'll be driven by per-pupil funding. So the larger districts, principally in the Lower Mainland, will benefit, in a way, disproportionately from this when the whole idea of this is to support children with special needs.

Hon. G. Abbott: A few points, I think, are very important here. First is to note, and this is important to understand, that the incidence of special needs across the 60 school districts is surprisingly consistent across that great diverse body we call British Columbia. There is not a great variation between the incidence of special needs in, for example, a rural district versus incidence in an urban district.

They're a challenge in both. There will be some variation up and down, but there is consistency across the board. They're roughly the same level.

To go to the point, which I think the member was making earlier, around the challenges of provision of educational services in rural-remote areas, I know that the member's constituency is probably a little bit more rural and remote than my own, but these challenges are not unknown in Shuswap either.

The advantage we have here in having in year 1 the disbursement of the $30 million or the $60 million, as the case may be, being reflective of the portion which each district takes in the overall funding is that this is the far-edge example of the funding formula and how it works.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Stikine is the smallest school district in the province, about 200 students, as the member knows, but scattered over this huge area — four schools, 16 teachers. The per-student funding is $22,000 per student as would compare to $7,000-something in the largest district in the province, Surrey.

[1600]

Stikine will, in a relative sense, get that same additional opportunity, based on how much more difficult it is to even get the paraprofessionals or professionals in to deal with special needs kids. Though there are not going to be many incidents of special needs, they are going to be very challenging to deal with because of the distances and the remoteness factor. The formula does take that into account.

A final point — and not to be picky, but it's important — the $7.5 million that will be utilized by the Canadian Union of Public Employees will be within that block that is disbursed to each of the 60 school districts. It will have to be used, for example, for extending the contact hours for educational assistance or in the extension of training, skills opportunities, for those teaching assistants.

Where it will go in terms of the BCTF side of the equation has to await that hopefully fulsome discussion we'll be having at some point with BCTF on this fund.

R. Austin: The portion that's not going to be used for members of CUPE, for the educational assistants. Is that going to be part of the discussions, then, that the mediator has to take care of, in Bill 22?

Or is it that after the mediator has finished his work, you are then going to be sitting down with the BCTF to decide how that's going to be used? Or is this something that's going to be decided with the school trustees or the administrators to ensure that the money is spent specifically on things that improve learning conditions for kids with special needs?

[1605]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, to set it in context again, LIF is based on Justice Griffin's decision and the discussions that were held pursuant to Justice Griffin's decision. Despite the failure of the discussions that led up to LIF and led up to this bill, it may be at some point that the parties want to reconnect on how better to disburse the LIF fund.

Whether that happened in terms of direct contact between government and union or union and government, we'd be quite happy to see that discussion proceed, because we haven't had that important discussion about how this fund might benefit the teaching profession in relation to the special needs students that they serve. That's a discussion that needs to be had.

If the union decided that they would like to have the assistance of a mediator in undertaking those discussions, it would not be inconsistent with the expansive mandate of the mediator to do that. That would certainly be a possibility, but we're not being prescriptive about that. If that's the way it turned out, we'd be fine with it, but we're happy to have the discussion under any terms and circumstances. The dollars are there. It's a question of how to make best use of them.

To your question, though, on how it's likely to work in this and subsequent years. Each school district, based on our previous questions, would get their allocation. Right now and through the end of June schools will be building timetables. They'll be building budgets, etc., hopefully on a collaborative basis, as we've spoken of previously.

The principals will be identifying within their schools those classes that have the highest needs from a spe-
[ Page 10284 ]
cial needs perspective. They will in turn be passing, as principals and vice-principals, that information on to the superintendent for that school district. The superintendent, then, will look at this constellation of need and develop a plan, in consultation with the president of the teachers association, for the distribution of those resources.

That would be what would be undertaken prior to the end of the current school year. There will be a plan in place and, hopefully, an agreement in place, subject to, obviously, the parties being able to secure that.

In many instances there will be some changes over the summer. The number of special needs students may change, or the overall student numbers may change. There may be elements that change.

So we would look forward in September, after registrations are completed, to some tweaking of the plan by the superintendent, the principals, the president of the BCTF local — having some discussion of that and, hopefully, agreement — with all of this culminating in a sign-off by the superintendent, a report to the board and the board reporting to the province on the distribution and effective utilization of the fund.

R. Austin: As time is running out, let me just ask a couple of questions, perhaps.

Is there going to be a deadline in terms of timing? For the schools to be able to plan for next year as to when the essential figure is going out from the learning improvement fund to each school district, is there going to be a deadline as to when the information is going to be given?

Will the dollars allocated to each school district…? Presumably, it's on a yearly basis, and then the school district cannot assume that those same dollars will come the following year.

That's good for now.

[1610]

Hon. G. Abbott: The information with respect to the distribution of the $30 million was communicated earlier this week, so they have that information now. There is a possibility of additional good news, in terms of the doubling of that, should we be able to move an additional $30 million into that fund.

The way that the fund works, as the member may recall…. It will be either $30 million or $60 million in year 1, moving to $60 million in year 2, $75 million in the third year and $75 million every year thereafter. That's the basis of the fund.

R. Austin: Is there going to be a holdback of that fund to ensure that once September starts, if a school district has got a higher need than it expected when they were initially doing their consultation…? Will there be a percentage held back, like in a lot of school funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: No. In this case it will go out in its entirety.

R. Austin: In subsection (2) of section 18, can the minister just explain what "any other grants payable under this Act" refers to?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is to ensure that these funds are incremental to or in addition to the block funds for this purpose.

R. Austin: That means that this has got nothing to do with the annual lift or whatever that the minister decides becomes part of the normal budgetary process. This is all in addition to…. So we won't see the situation of the budget coming down next year and there being this LIF fund being considered part of that normal budgetary process. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: That is correct. These funds will not replace the $866 million that is in the block for special needs purposes.

R. Austin: Does the minister expect, in subsequent years, that there may be districts fighting for these funds based on presenting their cases? Like if each teacher brings forward their information on what their class is like in terms of the number of kids with special needs and that information is all aggregated, like it is in the report that we were just talking about in our amendment….

If the need is obviously greater…. The minister often says we don't have unlimited dollars. As he knows, this is a system which, if we did have unlimited dollars, would use them. So given that the need for special needs is so great around the province, how is the minister going to ensure that once all this information is collated from each superintendent, which is gathered from each school district…? Ultimately, is the minister not going to have to be making a decision right here in Victoria in terms of who gets help and who doesn't?

We could end up in a sense of school districts fighting one another or arguing with one another, saying, "Our need is greater than yours because, look, we have so many kids with special needs," and another district saying: "Well, look. We've got so many kids with special needs that need help." In addition to that, quite aside from the actual child who has been identified, there may be capacity issues that vary hugely from district to district.

Ultimately, is it going to be the minister and the office down here that decide these things, or is there going to be a structure that enables it to really be seen as being fair?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an important question. I know I've heard suggestions that this would occur, but my answer is no. I wouldn't expect that at all because, first of all, special needs are not unique to any one of the 60 dis-
[ Page 10285 ]
tricts, as I mentioned in an earlier answer.

[1615]

While from year to year and district to district there may be some modest variation, still, predictably — whether the district is urban, rural, urban, remote, whatever it may happen to be — there's quite an impressive consistency across the piece.

Further, one of the important advantages we have in terms of understanding the degree of need and ensuring that, as I think the member appropriately framed it, fairness drives this fund…. We are now able, because of the facility of information-gathering and communication we have through vehicles like the early learning partnership and some of the great work that's been done at UBC around need….

First of all, we know the total student enrolment readily in each district. We know the number of students in each district who are diagnosed with special needs. We know whether they are level 1, 2 or 3. We know the level of severity that needs to be dealt with, and we know the location of schools, communities and services in each district.

So all of this volume of information we now have, courtesy of University of B.C. and other post-secondary institutions. We have a pretty good idea of this, so we can, as we now are going to do with CommunityLINK, use that information to drive the distribution of funds. Basically, that will be how we do it here as well.

R. Austin: That brings an interesting point. I wanted to ask the minister this. We have a lot of kids who have been identified, and the ministry has all that data. There are, though, a few districts, particularly those that are far away from urban centres, that have always had challenges in terms of simply getting their kids to be assessed.

The minister would know that there are students who are spotted by a teacher in the early grades as having some challenges. Because there is either a lack of capacity or a lack of funding to bring the specialized person up from Vancouver to do the assessment on a child, very often kids will go two or three grades without being identified. Those kids are often referred to as grey-area kids, and teachers know who they are and try to do their best to address them until such time as they can get assessed.

The minister just alluded to the human early learning partnership in recognizing those districts and those areas around the province where there is a greater vulnerability of children entering the system. The fact that all these grey-area kids have not been identified and the fact that the human early learning partnership does identify catchment areas of the province where children are entering the school system with great vulnerabilities…. How will those two areas be dealt with in terms of helping this learning fund to address the needs of those two specialized areas?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this question, because it's a very important and real-world issue. As the member rightly identifies, it is remarkably challenging if one has what we often term, fairly or unfairly, a grey-area kid. And if that grey-area kid happens to be in Lower Post, it is remarkably challenging to get a professional or paraprofessional in to do a diagnosis, never mind to do the therapy that might benefit the child in that case. That's a real-world challenge we have, and I think we need to think about that.

The second point I would make is that the issue of grey-area kids is not only one that is important, though, in rural and remote circumstances. Sometimes, based on demand and numbers in some socioeconomic areas, it can be particularly compelling in urban areas as well. So this is an important challenge.

That is why I am particularly excited about the conversation that we have underway with the deans of education of post-secondary institutions to see whether there is a way that we can build a set of programs or skills or degrees.

I'm not sure what it will look like, because we've just begun the conversation, but something that would provide an opportunity for a bachelor of education to take some additional training and become that paraprofessional link between the ever-short number of occupational therapists, speech therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, etc.

[1620]

That's a conversation that excites me. I think that gets us part of the way. That is very much the kind of thing which we can do under LIF.

R. Austin: Further to the minister's comments, these kinds of discussions — are they already taking place with those who provide post-secondary services in British Columbia, to design courses that aren't necessarily a full degree in psychology or whatever but that will enable somebody who has already got a bachelor of education to go and do some continuing education locally, at their local college or university, to be able to get those skills?

And is this something that the professional colleges that look after those areas are willing to engage in? I know that part of the challenge…. We hear it a lot around this Legislature in terms of working with different professionals. I'm going to use the example from the health care system. As soon as you start to suggest to a doctor that a nurse practitioner can do a large portion of what a doctor does, it creates huge challenges within their own respective professions.

So I'm wondering: are we going to see that same challenge here, or is this something that the minister thinks we can overcome?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think all of the things that the member referenced are possibilities. Respecting that we're
[ Page 10286 ]
now about four hours into probably a 200-hour discussion, clearly, there's a lot of thought and articulation that would need to go into construction of new programs or degrees in that area. We're not even scratching the surface yet. It's very early discussion.

But one thing we do know. I know that the member and I agree on many things, and I suspect we'd agree on this. Even if today, somehow, we were able to resolve with the universities a major increase in the faculties that produced speech pathologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists and so on…. Even if we were to agree today, it would be at least a decade out until we had enough to deal with all of the issues that we have within the school system.

I think it's a sensible step to think about paraprofessionals. And the member is right. Whenever you do that, there will be some in the profession who may say: "No, that endangers my economic basis."

I have a sister-in-law who, for the purposes of this debate, I'm certain, would prefer to remain anonymous, but she is a speech pathologist, speech therapist. She can't begin to keep up with both her public sector clients and her private sector clients. And virtually — well, I think, not virtually — everyone who has that set of skills is constantly in demand.

So I think it's going to be a long time, and there are going to be a lot of paraprofessionals produced before the need for those professionals is diminished in any way. What we're really thinking about here is not replacement of those skills but having someone — and again, the nurse practitioner is a good example — who can take account of the need but not necessarily having the full skill set of the full professional.

R. Austin: I think the minister makes a good point. While there is such a high demand for skilled professionals, now is the time to go at it and attack that issue. It doesn't hurt the economic base of a lot of these professionals, when the need is so great, to actually suggest that we can have paraprofessionals underneath them who can do a portion of their work, because it doesn't change their income at all. Hopefully, that will happen.

I'd like to take this discussion into another area. Very often, when we talk about kids with special needs, I'm certainly criticized, because I come from a school district that has a huge amount of kids with special needs and very few people who come from other countries. Therefore, we don't have a high percentage of English-language learners.

I'm just wondering whether the learning improvement fund would in any way help districts that have a huge percentage of English-language learners. Also, whether there is any recognition now….

[1625]

You hear it a lot from school districts — where it's not just a matter of kids arriving who don't speak English and need those extra supports, but it's kids arriving from countries who are very traumatized. So really, you could say that that's a psychological learning problem. Or they have, frankly, come from countries where they've never even sat in a classroom.

You've got a kid arriving from, you know, South Sudan — I'm going to pick an example — who has lived in a war-torn country all of their childhood. They arrive at grade 9 and end up in New Westminster. All of a sudden, this child would not necessarily qualify for any of the categories of special needs funding, but the child doesn't know English, is traumatized.

Is there opportunity for school districts or teachers to access the learning improvement fund to help with those kinds of children? We're seeing some schools that have a large percentage of those kids.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is: generally speaking, it is a separate grant area. It is a separate need area. But we will see, on an individualized basis…. Again, I think if there is a recurring theme, from my perspective, it is the need to look at every child on an individual basis. There may be individuals who have a convergence of English-language learner and a special need. In those cases, yes, the fund would be, I'm sure, of much benefit.

R. Austin: At the end of the first fiscal year, once the…. Well, these grants have now been given out, and hopefully they are going to be increased, with the extra $30 million.

Presumably, each school or each district, as its planning, will not be able to take that amount of money as a sort of baseline grant for the following year. They have to plan each year, recognizing that every year, when they get notice of their learning improvement fund grant, it will change, and could be changing quite dramatically, from year to year. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: In theory, there may be shifts from year to year, because of course, you have a graduating class, and you have an incoming class of kindergarten children. There may be some modest variation.

I'm advised, from those who have worked in this area for a very long time, that year-over-year changes are never huge and significant. They may be minor. I think from year to year there is going to be a fairly predictable body of need within any cohort of five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds and so on.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

R. Austin: Can the minister explain the purpose of section 19?
[ Page 10287 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: This goes to the discussion we had earlier about how this will be undertaken in year one versus year two. Generally, the added element in year two is a more specific and formal reference to consultation with the BCTF.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

R. Austin: I think we've discussed some of this, but I'd like the minister just to put on the public record what the purpose is of section 21.

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: Section 21 enacts section 168.01 of the School Act, which creates an authority for the minister to make regulations respecting the learning improvement fund grants, including but not limited to consultations that boards have to carry out in deciding how to spend the lift, spending plans detailing how boards intend to spend the grant and acceptable uses for lift funding.

Section 21 will come into force on April 14, 2012, when the learning improvement fund provision, section 18 of this act, comes into force.

R. Austin: With respect to the board having to carry out some consultations, does this mean that this is where parents get to go and meet at the board office? Or is there an expectation that at each school level, through the PACs or whatever, there will be a consultation with each school so that parents feel that they're part of the decision-making process in terms of their own board putting forward their application to the learning improvement fund?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes, and it will be specified in the regulation.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell the House what regulations he anticipates will be made with respect to consultations that the board must ensure are carried out before requesting a grant?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the member will respect that this hasn't received any final drafting. What we would contemplate, in terms of the consultations from the beginning to the end of the processes here, would be a consultation between principal and staff, between the superintendent and the district teachers association president, between the principal and parents, and between — in all likelihood — the superintendent and the district parent advisory council.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Can the minister also explain what regulations he anticipates will be made with respect to a spending plan that a board must submit on request for a grant? Obviously, the things that we've discussed as to where the minister believes the money should go in terms of helping kids with special needs…. That, presumably, would have to be fairly prescriptive. Am I right in saying that?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the spending plan…. I'll have to preface this by saying we've not yet had that full and proper discussion around this with the Teachers Federation, and we want to have that discussion. Clearly, they will bring some ideas, experience, expertise to the table that will help us better understand how we can get best utilization of the learning improvement fund. But the spending plan would certainly include the elements which we discussed in some detail earlier, which would be additional teachers and additional teaching assistants — sometimes styled special education assistants or education assistants.

It may be an expanded contact day for either teachers or for learning assistants or educational assistants. It may be an expanded skill set for either or both of those groups. It could be innovative programs which help us meet unmet needs in terms of paraprofessionals dealing with skill shortage areas. These would be the kinds of things.

I don't think we're at a stage in the discussion yet where we have the menu and prescription around the menu, but those are some of the elements. I'm certain we will discover more elements and more refinements as we get into a detailed discussion with the BCTF and, obviously, with CUPE as well.

R. Austin: Once the minister receives all of these spending plans from the various boards and reviews them here, down in Victoria, does he expect to be able to perform some sort of synergies in terms of savings, by pointing out that a school district…? Say Coquitlam school district decides that they need to hire a new audiologist. Unbeknownst to them, a school district not even 30 kilometres away also decides that they need to bring in an audiologist. Does the minister expect, once he sees all these plans, to be able to assist school districts in hiring new professionals and paraprofessionals that will be available to operate perhaps across school districts?

Up where I live, of course, we have professionals who go around huge kilometres to go to various schools, but I don't know that that necessarily takes place in the Lower Mainland. I'm sure that there are ones that go around from school to school within a school district, but in terms of some of the really highly specialized paraprofessionals, maybe they'll be finding places where they can save money by having an audiologist drive 30 kilometres to the next school district. Is there an expectation that we can save some money that way?
[ Page 10288 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member nailed it, from our perspective — all good stuff. The only thing I would add to it — we do hope that we can see some innovative partnering with health authorities and also to build some better mechanisms for sharing best practices in this area.

The Chair: The member for New Westminster seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Black: Last week I had the great pleasure of introducing my two oldest granddaughters to the House, and today my three youngest granddaughters are joining us in the Legislature. I would like the House to make welcome five-year-old Kate, who last weekend performed in her very first soccer tournament; and her three-year-old sisters, identical twins, Rebecca and Maggie. They're joined by their mother, Maya Russell, and by my son David Black, who is the president of the COPE Local 378. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1640]

Debate Continued

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

R. Austin: Can I ask the minister just to explain the purpose of section 24?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of section 24 is to provide clarity and certainty, particularly to arbitrators who may have to work with this bill in terms of understanding the future. It is to ensure that collective agreement articles which are deleted in this bill are not brought back to life by an arbitrator.

R. Austin: If the minister will bear with me, not being a lawyer. Am I right in saying, then, that what this section does is takes the retroactive language and prevents the BCTF from enforcing any of the previously stripped language as it deems to the deletion of the provisions to be retroactive to 2002, when the original stripped language was done? Is that what it's essentially doing?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe the member is correct. Again, for clarity and certainty, particularly for arbitrators, the collective agreement articles deleted are not brought back to life by an arbitrator.

R. Austin: Then what this section 24 does is…. This language in here attempts to insulate the government from having to provide any remedy for the constitutional breaches found by Justice Griffin. It's a bit like the language that was taken out and then put back in. Is that what this does?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, that is not the intention of this. Again, it's to provide clarity around it. It's not to do what the member suggested.

The Chair: Hon. Members, pursuant to the time allocation motion adopted on Monday, March 12, 2012, I shall now put all necessary questions for the completion of committee stage of Bill 22.

By agreement, a standing division will be held on the amendment to section 15, moved by the member for Skeena. I will now call all the members to the chamber.

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: Would now be an appropriate time to introduce the amendment standing in my name?

The Chair: Members, please take your seats to assist in recording the division.

[1650]

Hon. Members, by agreement, a standing division will be held on the amendment to section 15 moved by the member for Skeena.

On section 15 (continued).

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Pending the vote on the amendment, the committee had stood down section 15.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 26, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 26, by adding item 1.1 to the table as indicated:

[1655]

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

Bill 22, Education Improvement Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered?

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, pursuant to the time allocation motion, the question is third reading on Bill 22, Education Improvement Act.

[1700]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

Bill 22, Education Improvement Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Administrator is in the precinct, if everybody would remain in their seats.

Just a little note that this is our first official occasion for our new Black Rod to be used. If you recall, the Black Rod was a contribution to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee this year.

[1705]

Members, please take your seats.

His Honour the Administrator requested attendance to the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.
[ Page 10290 ]

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Offence Amendment Act, 2011

Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Education Improvement Act

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

[1710]

J. Horgan: I seek unanimous consent to move second reading of Bill M208 in the name of the member for Nelson-Creston, the Private Career Training Institutions Amendment Act, to help regulate private post-secondary education institutions here in British Columbia.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved on the following division:

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this House stands adjourned till 10 a.m., March 26.

The House adjourned at 5:14 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $34,753,000 (continued).

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. Welcome back after lunch and question period.

I'm just dealing with some treaty issues and, being mindful of the time, trying to get through those quickly, just so I have time for a lot of issues.

I guess, in the treaty process when a treaty table has come to an agreement — which is often difficult; tripartite agreements are often difficult that way — can there be some assurance…? Can the minister advise: is there any assurance to, for instance, the First Nation that when agreement has been reached in the tripartite table — the federal negotiators, provincial negotiators and the First Nation…? When they've come to an agreement, does the minister or ministers, does cabinet…? How often do they override those decisions?

Hon. M. Polak: To our knowledge, that has never occurred.

S. Fraser: Now, I wasn't at the table, but it was, I think, 2009 when during negotiations with the In-SHUCK-ch, who are a First Nation of isolated communities between North Harrison and Pemberton, behind…. Everybody knows where that is.

The negotiations there were…. They'd arrived at agree-
[ Page 10291 ]
ment with the treaty negotiators — in my understanding, at any rate. I was supposed to have a meeting with the negotiator today, but he was sick. The agreement was around water reservations. Water reservations were part of the agreement. The In-SHUCK-ch have economic interests regarding those.

Then they were told later by the then Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, who's now the Health Minister, that, no, those would be off the table. There would be no water reservations — at least, they wouldn't be guaranteed through the treaty, an agreement that had already been established through the negotiators.

Can the minister explain how that would…? I realize it's a different minister, but it's the same ministry. So how did that happen?

[1435]

Hon. M. Polak: That wasn't a circumstance that occurred after a final agreement had been reached. On many occasions throughout negotiations, mandates will be revised and adjusted in order to deal with challenges that arise during the negotiations.

It's unfortunate when that is not helpful to the First Nations — what they wish to advance — but that is part of the back-and-forth of negotiations. Decisions are made quite regularly to revise and advance different mandates or changes within mandates as negotiations progress. One can appreciate that over the course of the many years that it takes to reach a final agreement, there can be many changes in circumstances that result in a revised mandate.

S. Fraser: I'm not satisfied with the answer. Is there a tripartite agreement, a tripartite negotiation? So you've got the federal negotiator, the provincial negotiators and the involved First Nation — in this case the In-SHUCK-ch — arrive at an agreement, a tripartite agreement, as part of the negotiation. Presumably there is some ability for negotiators to actually negotiate. Otherwise, then, Sophie Pierre is right. We might as well scrap the whole situation. That has to be allowed.

So to get to that point where the three parties agree on an issue, then it appears cabinet overrode it. Is that not what happened? If not, could you explain: how is a decision that was arrived at in a tripartite negotiation overridden, and by whom?

Hon. M. Polak: First, to be clear, that aspect of the discussions was not tripartite. Those were discussions that were taking place as the negotiator for British Columbia was scoping potential areas for agreement and, as a result of those discussions, came back seeking direction. It was not a cabinet decision. It was in the ordinary course of direction in terms of how a negotiator proceeds. It is not uncommon for negotiators to scope different potential areas of agreement and to modify those and alter those throughout the course of negotiations.

S. Fraser: The minister played the role, though, of informing the nation, if I'm correct, that the verbal agreement that still had been arrived at, at the negotiating table, was to be overridden. How does the minister's role play into that?

Hon. M. Polak: We don't have knowledge of that, one way or the other.

[1440]

S. Fraser: All right. I guess I can't probe any further than that.

As we're on the topic of the In-SHUCK-ch, we've got a very high level in the treaty process. Of course, Douglas left that process, so we have a new…. Boundaries were reconfigured. The negotiations that will hopefully resume would be proceeding without the Douglas band, so we have new boundaries drawn. Now, my understanding is that the feds haven't come back with a mandate for their negotiators yet — with the new reality, without Douglas.

Is there any effort, or is there any ability of the province to…. I don't know if the province is the stall on this either. Maybe the minister can inform me. Is there a problem to proceed with those negotiations in a meaningful way? They were so close to signing. They arguably could have beat Yale if that change hadn't happened.

So I guess the question is: is there any way? Has the minister done anything to try to push the feds to actually come to the table with the new mandate? That would really be helpful to everybody if that negotiation were to get kick-started. Without the feds at the table, we have no tripartite — we get nowhere. I know the minister knows that. Can she affect the federal reluctance to move forward with this?

Hon. M. Polak: I will point out, as an aside, that we're probably creeping away from estimates discussion to a certain extent. But I will advise the member that the province certainly is active at the negotiator level with the In-SHUCK-ch. We have a mandate. We're ready to go, and we're anxious to do that. The federal government is pursuing their mandate at this time. When I met with the minister in Ottawa and, also, through correspondence, we have urged them to accelerate that process so that we can get the work underway.

S. Fraser: Thank you for doing that. Thanks to the minister for taking that position. Keep the pressure on, would be my advice. You know, it only takes one part of a tripartite negotiation to stall everything. So that's a problem, and it's not just with the In-SHUCK-ch. We've seen it in other cases here. I don't have time to refer to those specifically, but I know the minister gets this, and
[ Page 10292 ]
I appreciate that effort.

I'm going to move right on to friendship centres. Let's just cut to the chase. The minister knows I probed this at length last estimates, and I have with the estimates before, and with her predecessor, and I will continue to.

The importance of the friendship centres — I think the minister has already stated she knows that, and I believe she does. She knows also, if she's visited any friendship centres in the province — there are 25 now, with the two new ones, Surrey and Prince Rupert — that they are the main lifeline for many people as far as getting support off reserve.

[1445]

She also must be aware, if she's visited and spoken with those running the centres, that they're at the breaking point. The needs have greatly increased over the last decade. Increases in poverty and a disproportionate distribution of wealth have often ended up victimizing aboriginal people, and aboriginal people off reserve specifically.

Can the minister explain why there has been a refusal to provide the adequate funding requested — the $2.9 million that was presented in a very measured business case, I think a very defendable one, to the minister? Why was there a refusal to provide any resources?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, I will remind the member that we said earlier that our ministry is maintaining its funding for friendship centres. Albeit our funding is rather small compared to what occurs in the program-funding area.

The concerns that have been expressed around the ability for friendship centres to continue to provide service that is seeing increasing demand…. Those areas of funding are received from other ministries. We don't have any of the program funding contained in our ministry budget.

S. Fraser: That's not good enough. The minister knows that there's been no increase in core funding for friendship centres in 20 years. There've been a lot of changes in 20 years — the needs of aboriginal people living off reserve, a great increase in young population moving off reserve and looking for opportunities in urban centres, and in rural centres too.

There are no supports, in many cases, except for the friendship centres. So 20 years of no changes in core funding and a reduction of 17 percent in the funding coming from the government through the….

I realize that the minister…. I understand how a trust works based on interest and that the trust has been in place since the '60s. But the trust model potentially worked in the '60s because there was a return on investment that was certainly in the high single digits, if not in the double digits, in that period of time in the '60s, when the trust was first created.

On the ground we've seen a reduction of 17 percent from that trust, and we've seen no increase in core funding. You don't need to be a mathematician to know that this is a massive cut. It's a 20-year status quo budget up for core funding, meaning that friendship centres, especially considering their usage….

I'll give you an example. In Port Alberni the usage at the friendship centre…. They do great work. They're a lifeline for so many people. They help so many people off reserve as they're coming in from the Nuu-chah-nulth territories. Their client base has increased dramatically in the last ten years.

I was at the Mission Friendship Centre not long ago, in the Fraser Valley. Their clients — over a hundred a day are coming in.

Does the minister not see that there's a role to support the friendship centres? Somebody has…. They're doing the job the government should be doing. They're helping people, and $2.9 million….

How can there not be a budget for that? Can't the minister see that that's an investment in the future? It's a very meager, very lean request, considering the benefit that could be accrued by so many people that attend friendship centres.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to start just by reiterating our acknowledgment of the great work that friendship centres do. Personally, in this ministerial role and in my previous role, I have visited very many friendship centres, and I'm quite familiar with the very valuable services and supports that they provide.

With respect to the funding of them, while there was a reduction based on the level of interest revenue coming in from the First Peoples fund going back a couple of years — that was from $30,000 per friendship centre down to $25,000 per friendship centre — nevertheless, in the ensuing two years we have not visited upon them the reduction in the revenues coming from interest payments. We have protected their funding at that level. I think that's important to note.

It's also important to note that our ministry's funding does not go to provide services and supports and programs. That comes from other ministries across government. In fact, the total in provincial dollars that was provided directly to friendship centres is more than $7 million. It works out to $7.64 million.

In addition to that, although we won't know the numbers for this year until the end of fiscal, last year, through regional offices, the Ministry of Children and Family Development provided an additional $16½ million to local friendship centres. That was for a wide range of programs and services that they provide.

The key amount of funding and the vast majority of funding received by friendship centres is from ministries for whom they operate programs and services. It is, we recognize, becoming more challenging for them. It is the very reason why the Premier, in the throne speech,
[ Page 10293 ]
announced that we would be developing an off-reserve aboriginal action plan so that we could, in a much more effective way, coordinate the programs and services that we are providing to aboriginal people who live off reserve.

Obviously, the largest partner in that project will be the friendship centres. We do hope that through that exercise we will be able to put together not only better, more effective services to support those aboriginal people, but also that in the future, as we develop new programming models, it may in fact lead to a capacity to request additional funding for new services.

At this time it's important to note that our ministry does not provide funding to friendship centres for the vast majority of their program, services and supports. That's received from other ministries.

S. Fraser: "Reconciliation involves commitment to healing the relationships between the province and aboriginal peoples…. Reconciliation is a dynamic process that aims to produce long-term social, economic and cultural advantages for all British Columbians. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is the B.C. government's lead for pursuing reconciliation with the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia."

Considering that 60 to 70 percent of aboriginal peoples live off reserve…. Your own ministry's statement here…. This is from your own ministry. This is describing the role of your ministry. Clearly, it's within your purview to be supporting aboriginal friendship centres, and to be not supporting them would mean that you're not living up…. You should take these sections out of your description of the ministry.

[1455]

So $2.9 million…. The budget status quo, or it's a cut for friendship centres when their needs have gone up geometrically. There are no new announcements in the budget. There is no investment, despite the disproportionately lower quality of life in all of the socioeconomic outcomes that we've seen for off-reserve people. It's so high. The throne speech, yes, did mention the action plan. There is nothing in the budget that I can find for that.

B.C.'s 25 aboriginal friendship centres are the main deliverer of services, as the minister pointed out. They have requested critical core funding of $2.9 million, and the minister has refused. It is the minister and the ministry's responsibility, according to the purpose of the ministry. If you go on line for your ministry, this is what it says.

Has the minister gone to the Finance Minister and asked for the $2.9 million, and if not, why not?

Hon. M. Polak: I first of all want to just advise that I think we're moving quite a distance away from the topic of estimates. This ministry does not provide the program and service funding to friendship centres. That is the role of other ministries through which, through the friendship centres, many of those programs and services are delivered on behalf of ministries. They receive funding for that.

Are there increasing demands? Absolutely, but those are matters to canvass with those ministries.

In terms of the role that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation plays with respect to leadership in government, it is similar with respect to the off-reserve aboriginal action plan and with respect to reconciliation approaches generally across government. It is similar to the manner in which the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation is leading on the jobs plan. The very many programs and services that relate to that are delivered by line ministries, but the ministry of JTI is the lead on the jobs plan.

With respect to the off-reserve aboriginal action plan and the very many cross-ministry initiatives that we undertake all the time as government that impact on aboriginal people and First Nations, again MARR can play a lead role but does not have any funding in its budget. That is delivered through the line ministries.

S. Fraser: "The government will work with aboriginal partners, the federal government and local governments to develop an off-reserve aboriginal action plan to achieve better education and job training, healthier family life, and to strengthen cultures and traditions."

Okay, how is that going? Where is the action plan money? How many resources? How many full-time-equivalents are there? How much work have you been doing with the friendship centres to engage in that plan?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm glad the member has asked. The work that we have undertaken to date has involved evidence-based research into supporting the action plan. We've begun with a scan of all provincial programs, an analysis of off-reserve demographics, socioeconomic statistics, cross-jurisdictional research of things that we see as promising practices in the related ministries.

We are working with provincial ministries and agencies that have a relationship in some way to delivering services currently to aboriginal people off reserve, because we want to explore possible collaboration opportunities so that we can more efficiently serve the urban/off-reserve aboriginal population.

We are having some initial informal discussions with aboriginal groups, with the federal government, local governments. We are planning to bring back a plan that is generated by that information, hopefully very soon, for the rest of the more specific planning to be undertaken. It is probably worth pointing out that this wouldn't be the first time that we've achieved great success, potentially, without having a particular line item in a budget.

[1500]

Take, for example, the work that was done with some innovative approaches to homelessness by the ministry responsible for housing at the time, which involved
[ Page 10294 ]
bringing together very many different agencies, both provincial and local, and achieving great success in providing services and supports that would have homeless people removed from the streets and put into shelter. I shouldn't say "removed." We managed to succeed in having them be able to leave the streets and receive shelter and other supports.

That is the work that we have undertaken to date. We look forward to being able to put forward a plan that better coordinates the services that are there for people who live off reserve.

S. Fraser: The answer to that was right out of the playbook, I guess — no money, no mention of any full-time-equivalents. Is this being done off the corner of somebody's desk?

The problems and the needs for off-reserve aboriginal people right now are the highest they've ever been, and the resources are effectively the lowest they've ever been. I mean, the government is spending $15 million on advertising their jobs plan. The aboriginal young population is the fastest-growing population of its kind in the province. There's the looming skills shortage. Aboriginal friendship centres, amongst many other things, provide some key supports for getting training — for getting into the workplace, for getting into the workforce — for off-reserve aboriginal peoples.

Yet there's $15 million designated to talk about a jobs plan in the press — all very glitzy — and there's no $2.9 million to help on the ground, where it would help the most right now. There is no action plan budget, and there's no designation of one full-time-equivalent to doing that action plan. So I'd be somewhat skeptical of the answers I'm getting here.

Why would urban aboriginal people be denied any opportunity to succeed?

Hon. M. Polak: Far from it being worked on off the corner of someone's desk, our ministry has put together a work team. That's how we've conducted the efforts that I've just described. We are working together with the other ministries that currently provide service.

I think it's worth saying that it is our expectation as a government and as a ministry that feels pretty passionately about the needs of aboriginal people that line ministries will fulfil their obligations. The Ministry of Health has a responsibility to serve aboriginal people well. The Ministry of Children and Family Development has a responsibility to serve aboriginal people. Every ministry in government has an aspect to their ministry that relates in some way to aboriginal people.

These are not things that are delivered through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Those are things that are part and parcel of delivering ministerial services. When it comes to how we will improve the means by which services are delivered to aboriginal people off reserve — and we all know of the terrible gap in success in those areas for aboriginal people — the expectation is that those who are delivering those services will do a better job.

How do we do a better job? The first thing we need to do is examine our current programming to find out where it is that we are not meeting those needs. We are doing that in close coordination with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. We have a work team in our ministry. There is every expectation that those who deliver the services will not think that delivering services to aboriginal people is some kind of separate endeavour. It is part of our core responsibilities as government, and I should point out that that doesn't always involve providing more funding.

In fact, if we are going to provide more funding, then we had better begin by finding out which aspects of programs are currently working and effective, which ones are not and which areas need to see more programming, different programming or new programming. That is part of the assessment that we've undertaken.

[1505]

That is what we will be bringing forward in our framework. Some of that work has already been brought forward to our cabinet committee on families first, and we will be bringing forward more as that work is completed.

But to say that this is off the side of someone's desk when we have…. I would argue that if you add up the number of staff in MARR, the number of staff in health, the number of staff in MCFD — and we could go on — we're talking about potentially thousands of people that are involved around the province. We've already identified more than 700 program areas that are currently the subject of this analysis. So to say that this is happening off the side of someone's desk is just absolutely inaccurate.

S. Fraser: Well, if there had been no core funding increase for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations or Aboriginal Affairs in the last 20 years, you would see a dramatic inability to do anything. That's the situation for aboriginal friendship centres.

I'm not laying that on this government. I'm laying it on the last 11 years that it's been your responsibility to address these things. In that period of time we've seen the child poverty rate increase to the highest in Canada for seven years in a row. Disproportionally, we know there's representation from aboriginal people often living off reserve.

The minister knows. She says that she's visited friendship centres. They are at the breaking point. They can't even afford to hire proper staff and keep them because they have no secured core funding to be able to afford to do that.

The minister also knows, in dealing with youth and helping them get on the right track right from the beginning in urban centres…. The friendship centres do
[ Page 10295 ]
that. To do that properly, they need a continuity of funding, solid core funding, so that they can keep people. Building trust is part of that. It's an essential part of that, and it is not happening because there are woefully insufficient funds — not because they're not working efficiently. Those working in the friendship centres are doing so much pro bono. It's unbelievable.

The minister knows that too, because there has been no increase to core funding and a cut on the ground from any investment revenue that goes through the funds.

I did this last year. I beat my head against the wall. This was the same argument, and we're at the same place, except the needs have accelerated. The resources have not come through, not even a little bit, and $2.9 million would be the best $2.9 million that this government could spend.

If MARR and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation aren't the lead on this, then we've got another problem because it's all like this. The minister told me to go to other ministries last year. I was told that by a predecessor the year before. They'll all go back to: "No, that's the responsibility of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation." It says so, as the lead agency in your own documents.

The minister knows that I will get nowhere there, because when that's over, these proceedings will have already ended. So I can't come back to you in estimates to do this all over again, although I've done that one year later after doing this last year. That's not good enough.

I shall move on to the next topic. Fair warning that I'm not going away on this issue. It doesn't make any sense. If the minister won't take responsibility for providing the meagre resources….

Hon. M. Polak: It's not our ministry.

S. Fraser: "It's not our ministry," is what the minister said. Well, fair enough, then. Nothing has happened in a year except a commitment to a plan that has no budget.

The Premier said: "It's not about a new relationship. It's about new relationships, very much in the plural — new relationships that lead to self-sufficiency, that provide employment in rural and remote communities as well as large ones and that give hope to young people that they can stay in their communities and raise their families and keep the historic connection to the land where they grew up."

Now, that's the quote from the Premier: "It's not about a new relationship. It's about new relationships." I have a big problem with this statement because there is — or at least there has been from Gordon Campbell's government…. But there was a commitment to the new relationship — not "a" new relationship, not "new relationships," but the New Relationship document. In case the minister doesn't have it, it's very specific, it's very concise, and it's one of those weird things I happen to agree with that government did.

[1510]

It looks to me like a clear departure from any obligation or commitment to continue with the goals and the vision statement of the New Relationship. Can the minister comment? Is that true? Is the new relationship being replaced by a bunch of relationships?

Hon. M. Polak: What the member read of the Premier's comments reflect our commitment to go well beyond the New Relationship document. The fact of the matter is that the New Relationship document reset aboriginal relations in British Columbia, and we have benefited from it ever since. There have been bumps in the road, as there are with any relationships. But clearly, the Premier's commitment is to go beyond that beginning of a new relationship and continue to expand our involvement and partnership with First Nations to the benefit of all British Columbians.

I just want to very briefly respond to the statements the member made about friendship centres. Perhaps it is because the member, when he approaches other ministries, is expecting to find a line item specifically addressing aboriginal-type services in the various ministries. The reality is that line ministries provide services to First Nations, non–First Nations, aboriginal people, non-aboriginal people, and they do that as their responsibility.

It is not our responsibility as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The idea that the member is being misdirected is absolute nonsense. We provide a million dollars that we have protected in spite of declining revenues in the first peoples fund. The services and programs that are funded through other ministries are areas whereby the member can question those other ministers, but it is nonsense to claim that somehow we are not taking responsibility for an aspect of our budget.

Again, Mr. Chair, with respect to the question on the new relationship, I think we have been accommodating in discussing many of the policy areas that the member is interested in. But we are straying quite a ways away from what would be typical estimates discussion.

The Chair: We are way off in policy. I would caution the member that he could bring the questions back to the budget estimates before us. I have provided significant latitude.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I'll heed your advice.

My final statement on this was going to be regarding the throne speech and the budget. There is a glaring gap in any mention of the new relationship, so the line of questioning is germane in that regard. I shall move on, though. I'm not comfortable with the answers. I appreciate the latitude from the Chair, but there's so little opportunity to raise these issues in any other forum in this place, and that's a problem.
[ Page 10296 ]

Despite the willingness of your staff to work with myself as the critic, I am frustrated, because aboriginal people are frustrated in this province. Their outcomes have not got significantly better in many regards. I know the minister cares about this as much as I do, and I see faults in a budget plan that omits things.

While it may not be a line item on here and therefore it's considered out of order, the fact that it is not a line item is an issue for a budget that I think is lacking and creates gaps. That refers to friendship centres too. I'm not trying to get the last word, necessarily, in that.

I will move on. There are a few issues regarding the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that I'd like to probe a little bit.

[1515]

Does the ministry have a role — I couldn't find anything in the budget per se — in providing any capacity to First Nations in dealing with things like environmental assessments and that sort of thing?

Hon. M. Polak: The only aspect of capacity funding that our ministry would provide would be directly related to non-treaty agreements that we negotiate. Within some of those there is a component that is devoted to capacity funding for their particular operations. That would include the types of assessments that the member is describing.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

I'm sure the minister has heard concerns regarding the streamlining process that happened with the EA, going back to 2002-2003, where First Nation groups certainly felt, and rightly so, that they were excluded from consultations in the process.

Has there been anything designated…? Is there any function of MARR to address those concerns? Do they ever come to the minister's table? Does she ever have to consult with the Ministry of Environment to ensure that some consultations happened, considering the streamlining that happened, which took away some of the components of the requirements for consultation?

Hon. M. Polak: It's not correct to say that the requirements have changed. They have not changed at all as a result of the streamlining. What has changed is that we now have a deputy ministers group that meets regularly. That involves my deputy as well as the deputies from — see if I can remember them all — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Environment; Energy and Mines; Agriculture; and the environmental assessment office. I think I'm missing one other — in any case, the dirt ministries.

The deputies meet together. We provide guidelines. We assist in guiding staff in those ministries. But those ministries have the responsibility for the consultation obligations that result from their particular area of responsibility.

S. Fraser: I'd just like clarification on a couple of things there. There were changes. In 2002 the changes….

There was an elimination of provisions requiring engagement of local governments and First Nations on project committees and provisions allowing for inclusion of other stakeholders on public advisory committees. Also, the act placed considerably more decision-making flexibility with the minister and the executive director of the environmental assessment office — another specific change. Again, it's pulling away from First Nations.

Then one of the more controversial provisions in the act was its requirement that the executive director "take into account and reflect government policy identified…by a government agency or organization responsible for the identified policy area" — so when determining the scope, procedures and methods of an assessment.

[1520]

Just to be clear, I think you could argue very easily that they've taken a step away from active consultation with First Nations and aboriginal groups. It is with that in mind that there is a problem.

The minister must have heard complaints from aboriginal communities and leaders regarding how that environmental assessment, how those changes have tarnished the process for First Nations in many cases. I know that we've seen it numerous times.

The minister looks confused. I mean, like Prosperity, the process that's undergoing with the Enbridge pipeline. The minister must be getting some of the same concerns raised that I am as a critic from First Nations groups and leaders and individuals, aboriginal people. They see that the environmental assessment process has sort of sidelined them.

Is there any role for the ministry in providing for meeting those needs? Is that all done by the individual dirt ministries, or is it done through the environmental assessment office? It doesn't seem to be working so far, considering this is the lead ministry dealing with relations and reconciliation, and this is a bone of contention on reconciliation and relations.

Hon. M. Polak: As I've said, there is no change to the legal requirements and our obligations to consult First Nations. We take that seriously across government. Each line ministry is responsible for the consultations that occur under their area of responsibility.

Again, Mr. Chair, this is an opportunity to discuss the estimates for the budget of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and I fail to see how this has any relevance to that.

S. Fraser: I know that the Chair is going to cite me on this soon, so I'll just say that I guess I'm looking at…. Are there any full-time-equivalents that try to troubleshoot
[ Page 10297 ]
these kinds of obvious problems? I mean, you've just got to pick up the newspaper to see that there are problems with the process, specifically as they relate to aboriginal people and First Nations in the province.

Does the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation budget anything to address these kinds of problems and try to find a way to ensure that First Nations interests are met?

Hon. M. Polak: Every time we negotiate a strategic engagement agreement, every time we negotiate an economic community development agreement, every time we negotiate a forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreement…. The list goes on.

That is our core business. We are a resource to ministries and government. We provide the guidelines so that they understand their obligations. But the obligations to consult and the manner in which they do that are conducted by the ministries that have responsibility for that.

Our core business is all about ensuring that we not only meet the legal obligations of government but that we exceed them. In the agreements we have been negotiating, we have been far surpassing our legal obligations to work with and consult with First Nations. We believe it is important to be full partners with them in areas of economic benefit that can provide for mutual advancement of not only government's interest but, in particular, First Nations interests and local community interests across the province. It is our core business.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

This has a direct relation to the budget, where the question will be placed. For the Prosperity mine we had a provincial assessment that said yea, and we had a federal assessment that said absolutely not — a horrible project. And we have a Premier that early on went to the Prime Minister trying to get the federal environmental assessment overturned, completely disregarding the Tsilqot'in people and the court decision. Then the minister claims that they're trying to exceed standards there.

[1525]

As the minister knows, the Tsilqot'in decision was in the courts for, I think, 16 years. Chief William was there from the beginning, and in the Xeni Gwet'in we've got Marilyn Baptiste, a very astute chief, at odds with the province on how they've handled environmental assessment that they see as completely flawed and that has completely dismissed them and dismissed the spirit and intent of the court decision.

The minister refers to having the role of ensuring, from the ministry's point of view, that we meet or exceed legal obligations when it comes to…. Again, I haven't seen the resources or how much you designate to that. Maybe that's hard to find in a line item, so fair enough. But in that case, obviously, there was no exceeding or meeting — even coming close to meeting — obligations of First Nations in that regard.

The minister must be approached by the Chief, whether it's Marilyn Baptiste, or whether its Joe Alphonse. Has she met with the chiefs specifically? Has her staff met with the chiefs to try to find a way through this apparent miss through the environmental assessment process?

The minister says she has a role there to meet or exceed and to see that that happens. So how does that work through the ministry? Where does it work? It does not appear to be working to me.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I think we're straying quite widely from the topic of estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

As I've explained to the member, we are not the land and resource decision-makers. We are not the environmental assessment office. With respect to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, we have an excellent relationship with the Tsilhqot'in. I have met with the chiefs.

We actually, with the Tsilhqot'in, signed our very first strategic engagement agreement, albeit that agreement does not take into account, or does not include, the land that is the subject of the Prosperity mine discussions.

I would urge the member that if he wishes to discuss the manner in which things are proceeding with the evaluations around Prosperity, then he needs to address that to the appropriate ministries. MARR does not have a direct responsibility for that.

We do, as I said, have a very excellent relationship with the Tsilhqot'in. Our staff meet with the Tsilhqot'in pretty much weekly. We certainly try to assist and guide other ministries as they need advice and seek to deal with difficult situations, and this would be one of them. That is our core role, just as the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General plays a core role across government in providing advice and guidance on legal matters.

B. Simpson: On a specific matter in the same geographic area, with respect to Williams Lake Indian Band…. Just for context, I'm sure the minister is aware that Williams Lake Indian Band is trying very hard to have productive relationships, particularly with mining interests in that area.

[1530]

They have agreements with Spanish Mountain Gold. They're working hard, as the minister knows, with Mount Polley. We had a signing ceremony in Williams Lake that suggested the relationship between Williams Lake Indian Band and Mount Polley is going to move into a new chapter. But there is a sticking point on that.

On January 17 the minister did meet with Chief Ann Louie and some of her staff to discuss an economic and community development agreement with respect to Mount Polley, and particularly revenue-sharing. The Williams Lake Indian Band was told at that time that
[ Page 10298 ]
something should be coming shortly. They've been told subsequent to that that something should be coming shortly. What they're feeling like is that they're getting into this "the cheque is in the mail" kind of scenario.

I wonder if the minister could clarify — I had a discussion with the band today — two points they need to clarify. Is MARR the decision-making authority on these agreements? Secondly, is the letter actually in the mail, outlining the terms and conditions of a revenue-sharing agreement?

Hon. M. Polak: We have the authority to negotiate those agreements, but they're subject to mandate approvals. I understand they have been anxiously awaiting the communication, and I'm happy to say that I actually held in my hand yesterday a letter that went from my staff to the band about our plans to work with them on developing a revenue-sharing agreement around Mount Polley.

We're absolutely committed to sharing revenue with them, and we advised them in the letter that we will be pursuing a mandate for that very quickly. It's all a matter of timing in terms of getting in front of Treasury Board, but we expect to be able to do that very soon.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

B. Simpson: I appreciate the direct answer from the minister on this. As the minister well knows, in canvassing the Prosperity mine issue, it's more than Prosperity mine that's on the go in the Cariboo.

Just a final point of clarification that I was asked. Of course, this potentially has precedent-setting implications to it, because the government's position is that existing mines are not the subject of these revenue-sharing agreements. As a consequence, what's trying to be negotiated is: if you have an existing mine that is substantially changing its operations, that's where the government has indicated an interest in having revenue-sharing agreements for that expansion.

The band has become aware, subsequent to their meetings with the government, that Mount Polley is now looking at potentially a large underground mining play, particularly for gold. I wonder if the minister could indicate that the terms of the dialogue that they can have with Williams Lake Indian Band about revenue-sharing will take into consideration all future expansion of Mount Polley.

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: Our policy is that we will provide revenue-sharing on new mines or on major expansions. That would take into account all incremental new revenues, so even the underground portion, to the extent that it generates revenues, will be captured by that agreement.

S. Fraser: The minister is probably aware that the Tsilhqot'in went to Switzerland to take a case…. I know that she mentioned she has a good relationship with Marilyn Baptiste and Joe Alphonse, but they've taken a fairly hard line against the provincial government and how they're handling their issues, resource use in their territories.

It's not simply criticism of British Columbia's outdated laws before the United Nations; instead, we are educating the UN about who we are as Tsilhqot'in. She said: "The Tsilhqot'in will continue to call on both the B.C. and the federal government to uphold their fiduciary duties to protect our rights and titles, which means protecting Teztan Biny and Nabas from this dangerous proposal."

Obviously, out of importance and frustration, the Tsilhqot'in have chosen to go to the United Nations over failure of the province, and to a lesser extent the federal government, to respect their rights as determined through the courts. And they actually….

The Minister probably has seen the ten facts that show why the submitted Prosperity mine proposal cannot be approved. Does the minister take a role here when First Nations are basically forced to go internationally? This is not the only nation that's going internationally. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group has got an international effort in to try to get respect back for their land and title issues.

Does the minister feel that she has a role to address these concerns, especially when they become a black eye on us and on the country, on Canada?

Hon. M. Polak: I have already explained the extent to which of Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation provides guidance to other ministries. We are not the decision-maker in this case. We are not responsible for the manner in which other ministries implement either agreements with First Nations or their activities with First Nations.

Madam Chair, this is not relevant to the estimates for the budget of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Madam Speaker, it is indeed relevant. I'll just read this into the record — all right?

"The role of the opposition parties to extract accountability from government during the budget debate" — this is the budget debate, if I'm not mistaken — "is obvious. Opposition members in the Legislative Assembly may question cabinet ministers on all matters related to policy, fiscal plans, revenue, spending proposals and underlying assumptions." Now, that's a review of the estimates process in British Columbia by the Auditor General.

The minister cannot stray from answering questions because it's not relevant. She should take that up with the Auditor General's office, then. My role here is to ask
[ Page 10299 ]
these questions, and I would like to get answers rather than evasions.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Well, okay.

Question. If the Tsilhqot'in, the Xeni Gwet'in go to the UN because of a complete failure to respect their rights and title issues by the government of British Columbia — this is the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation saying that it's not her job to address that — who does address it?

Is it the job of the Premier, then? If so, surely the Premier would get advice from the minister responsible for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Has that happened regarding any of these international forays by First Nations to try to get their rights addressed?

Hon. M. Polak: As I've described, we provide guidance as part of our core business to ministries as to how they ought to fulfil their legal obligations to First Nations. That is the extent of our involvement. It is part of our core business.

[1540]

If the member wishes to discuss the manner in which the EAO operates, the manner in which the Energy and Mines Ministry operates, the manner in which the decision-making ministries on the ground operate, then he needs to discuss that with those ministries. It is not the role of this ministry.

Madam Chair, I would also point out that the convention in this House with respect to estimates is that this is a debate with respect to the estimates of the budget of our particular ministry. As such, I fail to see the relevance of the line of questioning either to this ministry or to the estimates themselves.

The Chair: Member, although the member may not be satisfied with the minister's response, these questions have been answered.

S. Fraser: Which questions have been answered?

The Chair: She's provided you with an answer. We know that you're not you're not happy with it, but you can move on to another question.

S. Fraser: Okay. Well, I'm sure the Xeni Gwet'in and the Tsilhqot'in will be pleased with that.

We have probed the new relationship. The minister has stated that the new relationship still exists, although it wasn't even cited in the throne speech. Presumably, this is the Ministry responsible, the holder of the new relationship, if you will, unless it's the Premier who's saying, "No, no. We're going to go with new relationships," and the actual document doesn't exist anymore.

I mean, I don't know where else to go for clarification on this. According to the Auditor General these are issues that I should be able to raise with the minister. And if, indeed, the new relationship…. If we're seeing a complete affront to the new relationship to the extent that First Nations are going internationally to try to get their case tried in the court of international opinion, then we have a problem if I can't ask the questions here. That's ridiculous.

In noting the…. And I'm not calling the Chair ridiculous. I'm just saying that if we're not going to adhere by an Auditor General's position on the role of the opposition in budgets, then we have another problem. Because that's an independent office that oversees — it's supposed to — in an objective way all sides of the House here, in a non-political way. If the minister is able to override the very specific instructions from the Auditor General on a specific report, A Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia, then we have a bigger problem, and it's about accountability and transparency.

A specific question, a local question, for me. The minister is aware that I have brought to her attention the issue of Anyitzachist, a hereditary chief for the Hesquiaht First Nation, Nuu-chah-nulth, who was executed in a gunboat judicial process that was so badly flawed no one could call it justice. The people and the relatives, the families from Hesquiaht, have been asking for reconciliation on this issue for a long, long time.

I won't land this right on the minister as any kind of a failure. I've brought it up with every minister since. Actually, to be fair, this is the first minister that has actually seemed to have taken it a step further. So I appreciate that.

With regards to the families that have requested this, can the minister update on where we're at with this? Just for the record of Hansard, there was an execution that took place in the community of Homus which is Hesquiaht territory, Nuu-chah-nulth, northern Clayoquot Sound today. This happened over 100 years ago. There was a trial of a chief and another member of the Hesquiaht Nation — that they had committed murder regarding a shipwreck. In essence, they were actually trying to treat the bodies of the dead with respect.

They were taken to court in Victoria, in chains. The trial was without an interpreter, and they were found guilty and subsequently brought back to their community. Gallows were built, and they were executed before their family and their community — a horrible, dark stain on our past that we'd like to see reconciliation on.

I just wanted to provide that context. Can the minister comment on where we're going with this? Are we going to get an appropriate apology from the Crown?

[1545]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the member will remember that we met together with Chief Amos and other family members back in October of 2011. In December of that
[ Page 10300 ]
year our staff from the ministry attended a very large gathering of the family in Port Alberni honouring Chief Amos and making the formal conferring of his ancestor's name to him.

We have since been in frequent phone contact with the Amos family members and met with them again on February 2 of 2012 to talk about next steps. Work that we've done to date has certainly been inclusive and respectful and really focused on building a positive outcome for them in this regard.

We were pleased to have been able to share our report on the whole incident with them, and our understanding from the family is that they are satisfied with the work that we have done with them to resolve this. Unfortunately, pardons and exonerations are the jurisdiction of the federal government. My understanding from the family is that they are satisfied with where we have gotten to.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that update. I'll continue to follow it. It is important, and I'm glad that we are making some progress here. I'm very hopeful that it's not…. I mean, the federal-provincial thing is…. I hate to see something…. Often issues slip through the cracks when there's that grey area between federal and provincial responsibility. There is a role I think for the province in a very powerful, symbolic way to provide some reconciliation here, and it's certainly my hope that that will happen. So thanks to the minister for that and for bringing me up to date on it.

On another issue — a specific issue, if I may — the minister must be aware of what's happening with the Musqueam band. They have an issue with a development in a heritage site. It's arguably the oldest village site, archaeologically, probably in the province, in the Lower Mainland.

The Marpole village site is 4,000 years old by estimates. A grave has been discovered too. The site's been well known for a long time. They are arguably — that is, the Musqueam — very upset because the site is in the process of being defiled. I know these are difficult issues. Do they come across the minister's desk as far as her role, or does she have staff that try to come in and ensure that…?

I know that the minister is going to say it's the Heritage Conservation Act that's involved. I get it, but the Heritage Conservation Act — and the minister will have heard this many times — is severely flawed and outdated when it comes to addressing and respecting aboriginal rights.

Is the minister going to be getting involved, or is she involved in trying to ensure that a grave site is not destroyed because of some bureaucratic grey area?

Hon. M. Polak: Our staff are working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to assist them as they seek to find a resolution to this. The decision-making role does rest with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and they are the ones with whom you would canvass this in detail.

S. Fraser: I would note that my understanding is the city is willing to work with the Musqueam, and there is an initiative to develop a park because it is a heritage site already. They're asking that the development halt while those negotiations happen. Is there a negotiating role that the ministry can play?

I know we negotiate through the ministry with treaty. This is obviously outside of treaty, but it's very much in keeping with aboriginal relations and reconciliation — just the meanings of the words. This is a metaphor for trying to address those issues.

[1550]

Hon. M. Polak: We operate with respect to these types of disputes in a support role for the line ministry involved, but it's the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations who are negotiating that directly between the parties.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I realize it's a different ministry. Is the minister aware? Is there a negotiation happening with government? Is that something that comes up? I'm not trying to push the minister on it. I just want to know. Is there anything happening with the province? Are they involved in any way, whether it's through heritage and conservation or the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations?

Hon. M. Polak: For detail, really, the member should speak to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. But I can say generally that there are active discussions taking place, and our ministry staff have been playing a support role for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Fraser: I had the honour of attending…. I had leave on Monday. I attended the truth and reconciliation hearings in Port Alberni. There were two days. I could only get one day of leave, so I took day 1 and went there. Maht Mahs, the centre in the Tseshaht First Nation, hosted the event, and the commission heard…. It was a full house, and there were a lot of tears. I was very impressed by my friends, elders, chiefs who bared their souls in a way that was very painful, not just for them but for everybody in the room.

There will be recommendations coming out of these commission findings. I guess on the Island here, the session will culminate in the middle of April at the convention centre across the street, and I'm hoping to attend some of those. I wouldn't be surprised to see the minister there too.

The result of these hearings will probably be recom-
[ Page 10301 ]
mendations, as I've mentioned, from the commission and from the commissioners. They've already mentioned one. Justice Sinclair, Murray Sinclair, already mentioned the fact that the mainstream curriculum across the country, not just in British Columbia, is lacking in telling this history, this dark part of our past, and it needs to be told. It's something that has been kept quiet for too long. It would be part of the reconciliation and hearing process.

As those recommendations unfold, and we've already got one…. It's early days, but that's the one from Justice Sinclair regarding making sure that these things are taught in the schools.

Does the minister see a role for government here? Will she be playing a role as these recommendations flow out of the commission, just to help oversee that they are taken seriously by government — in this case, the province? Obviously, the federal government has their own role to play here.

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, as the member mentioned, this is a federal process. We are encouraged by the open dialogue that is taking place and the opportunity for First Nations to voice, on many occasions for the first time, some of the experiences that have shaped their current existence and their current circumstances.

With respect to the recommendations, we'll await them. As they appear, as they are discussed, they would be the responsibility of various ministries across government. For example, if there was a need to respond to a recommendation around improving the treatment of aboriginal history in the curriculum in British Columbia, that would be a recommendation that would be dealt with by the Minister of Education.

[1555]

Certainly, we as a ministry play a role in guiding government broadly with respect to their approaches to First Nations. But again, each line ministry is responsible for their program area.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that, and I'm hopeful that any recommendations that do come out will be worked collaboratively by all parties — the federal and provincial governments — because there are jurisdictions that are going to cross all over the place on these things. And it's important.

I'm hopeful that the pain that people are going through…. By unburdening themselves to the public of these horrible parts of their history, I'm hoping that'll be part of healing in a real way, and I know we'll all play a part in that. Thank you.

I'm sorry about jumping a bit here. There's an issue that took place; I've got a specific issue again. There was a horrendous accident on Highway 1 in the canyon just 55 kilometres north of Hope. This was the Spuzzum First Nation that brought it to my attention. They have contacted the province regarding it. I'm just curious if the minister has been contacted by the Spuzzum band regarding this accident.

The issue is that there were people killed. There were two drivers killed in this, and the semis ended up in the river. Currently there's a historic site… I mean, historic in the sense that it has been used to teach kids to swim. It's a perfect swimming area in the river.

I visited it, and it's no longer usable because the remains of the accident still exist. The actual trailer is still hung up on an abutment. I took pictures when I was there. I can make them available to the minister and her staff. There's stuff, like even the booms that were strung out to try to contain the fuel leaks and that. They're just lying there.

There's nobody who seems to be responsible for cleaning it up. There's not an active spill per se, so the Ministry of Environment apparently has said there's no role.

I don't know if the minister has that. I made a copy. My copy has coffee on it, but I did get a copy made, which maybe I can pass over to her and her staff.

Can the minister just let me know if she's heard about this? Here we've got this right in a territory where the Spuzzum First Nation have historic use well established, an important use — teaching kids how to swim. Has she got hold of this information? Is there any role that she can play to help get somebody to do something about it?

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you to the member for providing this. We were not aware, and we'll be happy to look into it on behalf of the member.

S. Fraser: I'll just reiterate. I've got some graphic pictures of this, and it's a real issue. It is confusing, too. I mean, is it ICBC? Is it highways? Is it Environment? Is it MARR? Is it all of them? Is it none of them? Nobody seems to want to take responsibility at this point, so I would very much appreciate the minister's help on that, because I don't even know where to start. That's why I'm coming here, figuring that it was fortuitous that we have our estimates process at this point.

I raised an issue, actually, in question period a while ago. It has budget implications for sure. I guess it's around consultation. If a bunch of land is going to be liquidated from the province, including lands that…. As the minister knows, when Crown lands are put on the block, it kicks in obligations — certainly, the obligations laid out in the new relationship and in case law, which the ministry always responds to, I know.

There has been a specific amount, $706 million worth, of land that will be put on the block to balance this coming budget. First Nations have contacted me about this, as the critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, asking: how can a specific number have been arrived at when they haven't been consulted with? Everyone is wondering: which lands, where? So this is causing a lot of confusion amongst First Nations.
[ Page 10302 ]

[1600]

Has the minister had any contact, as I have, with First Nations in the province regarding the surprise statement in the budget that we are going to be liquidating land? It's been identified to the extent to the dollar, its value, but there has been no consultation to this point.

Hon. M. Polak: We have talked with the leadership council and, of course, reassured them with respect to our obligations as a government to engage in the appropriate consultations. As I said in my question period response, we are very early in this process.

We have developed an inventory of surplus land. The sales of those surplus properties are not going to take place prior to April 2013. That's indicated in the budget documents.

We certainly respect our obligations to consult with First Nations on the disposition of any Crown lands. That consultation will occur prior to the sale of properties. Crown real estate assets that have been offered by the province in treaty negotiations are not included in the inventory of surplus properties.

We have deemed some properties surplus, but more details will emerge as the properties are prepared for market and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That will be a very transparent process.

We certainly recognize that Crown land continues to be a very important part of the treaty negotiations process. If you wish more detail on that, it is the Ministry of Finance that is the lead on that particular issue. As well, I believe it has been canvassed with the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

S. Fraser: Now, if I've got this straight, so the properties identified….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Yeah, the surplus property. I'm reading from the three-year fiscal plan. It says: "The surplus properties identified represent less than 2 percent of the value of the overall property holdings of the province." That is substantial — 2 percent of the province. It's pretty big, but it's been nailed down to, "Generally the assets identified for disposal have an assessed value of $1 million and higher" and they're to be marketed in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

Is the minister saying that none of these properties are within treaty lands or affect a nation that is in the treaty process?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, Crown real estate assets that have been offered by the province in treaty negotiations are not included in this inventory of surplus properties. With respect to the other aspects of it, though, this needs to be canvassed with the ministry responsible. That's not the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

S. Fraser: Again, for clarification. The minister probably said this, but I might have missed it. Sorry. So would it be the Minister of Finance? I'm going to get moved to other ministries on this issue. I realize that, but I want to make sure I capture this right. Who do I want to go to? Do I have to keep going to different ministers to get different answers or whatever?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that some of this was canvassed with the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, but the member could also pursue detailed questioning, especially with respect to evaluations of the financial matters surrounding the properties, with the Ministry of Finance.

[1605]

S. Fraser: I'll close on this, just so I have this straight. There wouldn't be an active role for MARR in any of this? As far as the consultation, is that from the specific ministries you've just mentioned, or does MARR get involved? Do we have people on the ground who help make the overture about property that's going to be put on the market? If it's not treaty, as the minister knows — even if it has an effect on traditional territories or whatever — if there's a potential impact on First Nations, there is a duty to consult. So that consultative role will rest with the other ministries and not with MARR?

Hon. M. Polak: That's essentially correct. MARR does not hold any of the properties within its ministry, so the ministries that are in possession of those assets would be the ones responsible for conducting appropriate consultation. Certainly, our ministry would play a role in advising them as to their obligations and how they might wish to proceed.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

There was a forum put on at UVic last year by First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining — FNWARM. The minister is nodding. I was very impressed by the group. There were no-shows. The provincial government was not represented there, although the invitation was clearly there. I believe that the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation was requested to attend also, besides representatives from other ministries and ministers specifically requested. Was the minister requested to attend that meeting, or a designate?

Hon. M. Polak: I was invited to attend. I was not able to, so I did meet with FNWARM separately.

S. Fraser: I'm sure she was impressed by the group, as I was. They were a very powerful aboriginal group representing aboriginal women in the province. Can the minister apprise us: is there an ongoing conversation with this group — with her or the ministry? Are you
[ Page 10303 ]
working together? Or are they working specifically with other ministries involved with mining? Natural Resource Operations, I guess, would be the other one. Is that who they would be working with?

Hon. M. Polak: I don't know the extent to which the other ministries are working with that group, but the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation has not had ongoing conversations with them.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

The United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, I know, is a federal issue. But we did sign on as a country, and there's nothing in the budget about it. I've probed this with your staff too. It is a symbolic thing, I guess. But it means much, as the minister knows, to First Nations and the province that there is a lens to look at relations with and adjudicating decisions that affect aboriginal people not just in the province but in the country and in the world.

Is there any role for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation? I couldn't find anything in the budget. But is there any role for the minister or the ministry to play in trying to adopt the lens of the declaration, the articles within the declaration — trying to adopt that as something that needs to be moved towards as we improve relations and effect reconciliation?

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: We believe that our policies are certainly consistent with the spirit of the declaration. Again, just to advise the member, the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is to be a guide to other ministries across government as to how they ought to go about engaging with and consulting with First Nations.

S. Fraser: I think we've probed this in previous estimates, maybe with a different minister. The role of the ministry — a lot of it seems to be centred around jobs and economic development opportunities for First Nations. But the authority for those discussions then gets shifted to the specific — whether it's mining or natural resource operations, forestry. So those ministries sort of take the lead.

The minister has explained earlier that it's their responsibility to do the consultations and everything. I get that, but I'm just curious: is there a formal liaison role that comes out of the ministry? Do you have designated liaison people that work with other ministries to ensure that they are meeting the spirit and intent of court decisions, as opposed to each ministry doing it by themselves?

It just seems to me that having a ministry that's specifically designated Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation should be sort of the lead on this so you don't have to have resource people in every ministry.

Hon. M. Polak: We do, in our ministry, have specific staff identified and designated to fulfil those roles. They have ongoing dialogue and relationship with ministries across government. That is our role.

If the member wishes an illustration, it is in much the same manner that the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General would also liaise with ministries, as there are always legal issues in virtually every area of government. They would advise and provide guidance in much the same way that we do in our role around aboriginal people in the province.

I will add this, just by way of illustration. This perhaps gives you a bit of a sense that can assist with other questions you may have. I have frequently said that if our ministry does its job correctly, then decades from now we will work ourselves out of a job.

Fundamentally, the best way for us as government to be dealing with First Nations is through the line ministries that provide service themselves and not to have the need for ongoing negotiations to resolve outstanding issues but to have those issues eventually resolved. Although that's a very, very long-term goal, perhaps that gives the member an idea of the role and approach of the ministry.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. Is it quantifiable? You say there's liaison work that's done through the ministry. Are there full-time-equivalents that do that, or is it part of the general role of the ministry? I couldn't find that in the budget documents themselves. I was trying to find a line item or a full-time-equivalent for that.

It's an important role for the ministry, I think, to make sure that happens. Certainly, if the minister can give me any more details about that, it would be great.

Hon. M. Polak: It's part of our core business, and with respect to the type of crossover that we experience, it would be impossible to quantify any kind of listing of discrete individuals who are attached to this or that ministry. It tends to be a matter of those who have familiarity with a region or familiarity with a particular issue.

[1615]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

This will span into federal authority, but if I can give a bit of a segue for it. I'm concerned about housing on reserve — and, for that matter, off reserve. The homelessness issue with aboriginal people off reserve is a very real issue too.

I'd like to just focus on, on reserve. I realize the issues on reserve are federal. However, there is a responsibility, I would say, for the province and the ministry to…. They have a certain responsibility for what happens on reserve, regardless of the federal authority.
[ Page 10304 ]

On that, I am just wondering if the minister is familiar with Jordan's principle? It was brought into place because an aboriginal child died in the hospital, was never able to come home to his community, even though they did work on the home. The federal authorities were saying that it was a provincial problem because it's health care. The provincial government — this was in Saskatchewan, I believe — was saying that it's a federal issue because it's on reserve.

The child and the family fell through the cracks, and the child died without ever being able to come home — a very heart-wrenching story. That's Jordan's principle. It's been adopted as Jordan's principle. Jordan was the little boy.

I want to go down, probe this a little bit to see if…. It's germane to the province because Gordon Campbell, in his role as Premier, actually raised this — I would suggest, after I raised it a number of times in the House, in estimates — as part of a throne speech, recognizing and adopting the principles of Jordan's principle.

I'd like to start a little bit of a conversation about that and how we as a government and opposition might be able to work to common cause here.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm very familiar with Jordan's principle and, in fact, proud to say that British Columbia was the very first province to adopt Jordan's principle.

With respect to issues of housing, that is not something that we have responsibility for in our ministry, and it should be canvassed with the Minister Responsible for Housing.

S. Fraser: I will follow this up again with Housing, although it was earlier estimates with the previous minister, Stan Hagen, and with Children and Families that I actually raised this, and then with Tom Christensen as Aboriginal Relations Minister.

We actually did get some resources to a little girl in Ahousat who was falling through the cracks. She had a congenital condition known as Usher syndrome. She wasn't getting help, because it was somebody else's problem.

So here's where a little bit of leeway, if I could…. When the minister goes on a reserve, as when I go on the reserves…. Many reserves in the provinces are Third World in the conditions. Sometimes adjoining non-native communities are quite wealthy, and that disparity just seems so wrong. I know that the minister agrees.

Then, when you see and visit on reserve and actually get toured through some of the housing situations there, where there's mould and massive hazards…. There's overcrowding, because some houses become so bad. These old Indian Act–built houses are so woefully lacking, in many cases, on reserve.

There's a direct provincial implication, and it affects children. One issue is childhood asthma. We're seeing higher levels of that — kids on reserve growing up in mouldy housing that's substandard. I get it that it's a federal issue. On reserve the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the living conditions are safe — certainly for children and for the whole family.

If they're not doing that — if the feds are missing their calling here and not addressing these needs — it falls to the province as a cost. I'm just talking the business case here. There's the moral and ethical. The cost will be borne through the health care systems or through Children and Families, in some cases, because the conditions are not safe, and a child could be at risk of being removed from the family. It has major implications.

[1620]

As the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, can there not be a role played through the ministry to try to even advocate for First Nations, if they are not getting anywhere with the feds and they're falling through the cracks and the children and the families are being made victims on reserve?

Hon. M. Polak: We have been able to play the role of facilitator, as other ministries have worked on projects, to begin to try and address some of this, specifically with Ahousaht, with Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw. Those are two very good examples.

The detail of it would have to be pursued with the Minister Responsible for Housing. MARR has simply played a facilitative role in terms of putting those pieces of work together between the federal government and the appropriate ministry.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate the role being played in any advocacy that can happen there. At the end of the day, if the federal government has the responsibility…. This isn't opposition policy; this is just me. If the feds are letting down kids on reserve to the point where they are being put at health risk because the housing is woefully lacking, we should fix it and send them the bill.

That's maybe a symbolic statement from me as an opposition critic, but it's unacceptable that…. Okay, the feds aren't doing it, and it's their responsibility. We can't do it, because it's a federal responsibility. It's everyone's responsibility.

I guess I would like a comment back on this from the minister. It's outrageous that we have these conditions in this province. Ultimately, the problems that fall out of not addressing housing on reserve — it's a federal responsibility — land on the province anyways.

Again, I'm not fighting with the minister here. I'm agreeing. If the federal government is so remiss in some cases that they are putting children's lives at risk on reserve, is it a potential option to go in, put the resources in to fix the problem and send the feds the bill?
[ Page 10305 ]

Hon. M. Polak: It's not only a federal responsibility, but of course, this occurs on federal land, which means that we do not have the authority to enter the land and do as the member has suggested.

I want to say, though, in the strongest terms I can that I certainly agree with the member in his assessment of the need. In many cases the conditions in which First Nations are living are quite appalling.

We as a ministry, in particular, attempt — I think successfully in many cases — to advance the opportunities for First Nations to improve that circumstance by providing them with economic opportunities that then generate revenues that allow them to improve their circumstances on reserve. We will continue to work with our ministerial counterparts to do what we can to improve circumstances off reserve.

I should mention that we certainly played a facilitating role in developing and funding more than 200 off-reserve housing units through the aboriginal housing initiative. Again, though, for detail, one would have to speak to the Minister Responsible for Housing.

B. Routley: First of all, thank you to the Chair and to the minister for this opportunity.

I recently met with Cowichan Tribes, in the latter part of 2011. Particularly, I met with the Coast Salish Employment and Training Society. I actually sent a letter to the ministry regarding the transfer of funding. Originally, it was federal funding that has been reallocated to the province of British Columbia. Apparently, that funding was for training.

[1625]

The feeling of Cowichan Tribes…. Certainly, the folks that I talked to with that Coast Salish Employment and Training Society felt that too much of the funding that was formally federal money that came to assist Cowichan Tribes to deal with some of their issues, whether it was their friendship centres or their other training needs — kindergartens, that kind of thing, to help children access the kind of kindergarten or early learning needs that they had — so that their parents could go and take the training in order to get a skill set and to move on to the rolls of the employed….

The kinds of things that I heard at that meeting were really quite alarming. They talked about the fact that they needed — for Cowichan Tribes, which is one of the largest First Nations groups in British Columbia, certainly in the Cowichan Valley…. When I went door to door with Cowichan Tribes as well as out with the Malahat band, I heard a lot about the challenges they face.

But in the recent meeting with them they talked about needing help with literacy issues. For some of the young mothers that wanted to get an opportunity to find employment and get the skills they needed, literacy help as well, they told me that the waiting list for their kids to get into the kinds of programs they needed were too long and that as a result of funding cuts, they weren't able to get enough child care so that they could get into the programs they wanted to.

They talked about the never-ending waiting lists and that they never seemed to decrease. They talked about hardships for children and families living under the poverty line. They talked about how it was getting tougher on the reserve. So that's most alarming, when you hear…. They even talked about having to cut back on the lunch money for the existing programs because of the cuts in funding that used to be transferred — up to $250,000, apparently, that used to come to their program.

I know their program covers a lot more than just Cowichan Tribes. In fact, the Coast Salish Employment and Training Society serves 19 tribes and has three friendship centres that are located on south Vancouver Island, in various areas.

Hearing these alarming concerns…. The feelings they shared were that too much of the money that they used to achieve and was transferred federally, which has now been given to the province, is no longer finding its way to the First Nations.

That money seems to have been reallocated. A lot of it's going to the university, and it's not getting down to the level that really needs the increasing opportunities for literacy and early learning and the daycare that they need, to help them.

I guess my question to the minister is: do you agree that they're out $250,000? Do you know how much of the former money that used to be transferred federally has been taken up into other programs, and how much money would actually have been reallocated and is helping the Coast Salish now?

Hon. M. Polak: I certainly acknowledge the challenges that are faced, in particular by First Nations on reserve, and I'm pleased with the member's own concern and passion for it.

Unfortunately, I have to advise the member that we have no responsibilities for program areas or service delivery areas, so we have no knowledge of the specific funding that the member describes. That would have to be explored with the ministers responsible for those program areas.

[1630]

I'm only offering a guess here to help guide the member. We'd be happy to look into which ministry or not to direct this question to, if that would assist the member.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm going to speculate that it's probably Advanced Education. It could be, in fact, around the child care piece. Some of it might be Children and Family Development. But we'd be happy to find that out for the member, as best we could.
[ Page 10306 ]

B. Routley: I'd definitely like to thank the minister for that offer, and I would definitely like to try to find our way through the cobwebs, so to speak, and find out where the money is that they're talking about that was at one time allocated to them. It was federal funding that they are talking about that's now going to EAS offices. I assume that it's not being received by the CSETS office any longer, which is the Coast Salish office. So if someone could look into that for us, that would be much appreciated.

The other thing is on the Select Standing Committee on Finance. When we travelled all over the province — and I've been on a number of those trips now — one of the things that really stuck with me, in all of those trips around the province, was the First Nations friendship centres and the fact that they are trying to do major work to help folks that are off reserve.

In the Cowichan Valley I know it's in the range of 60 percent who are living off reserve. I'm sure you're familiar with all of those statistics and that it's extremely difficult for the friendship centres to keep up with the kinds of demands that are placed on them.

Again, they are involved in assisting with a wide variety of programs. I'm sure that you would agree, as I do, that this is worthwhile work that's done all over British Columbia by the B.C. friendship centres.

One of the recommendations was: "Invest additional resources annually into a long-term capacity fund for B.C. friendship centres." That was a recommendation that was made by both sides of the House, if you like.

The committee is made up, as you know, of both Liberal and NDP MLAs. It's one of the things that I actually enjoy. There are times that we can come together. We don't always agree on a lot of stuff, so when we do agree on something, that's a good thing.

It's a recommendation to government that was in our report. Obviously, that's gone through your processes at budget time. I would like to know what steps have been taken and if there has been any improvement in the budget. Hopefully, I'm not going to hear that it has been cut.

The specific proposal that we had was: "Invest additional resources annually into a long-term capacity fund for the B.C. friendship centres." So I would like to have some kind of update on where we're at with that.

Hon. M. Polak: I certainly agree with the member that the work that friendship centres do is incredibly valuable in communities. I have visited many of them over the years, and I am happy to say that we are working very closely with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and others as we in the ministry take the lead in developing the off-reserve aboriginal action plan.

However, the vast majority of the funding that goes to friendship centres is through other ministries. Our budget does not involve program funding. We do provide to the friendship centres about $1 million from our ministry. That's money that we have maintained this year, in spite of dropping revenues from the First Peoples fund. That's where the money comes from — from interest from that fund.

[1635]

But we are working with the other ministries to identify what the components of that plan would be. It is our hope that, through developing that work, we will be able to understand not just how we can better align those services to support aboriginal people off reserve but also that we may then be able to bring forward a plan that would see some additional funding coming forward at some future time, if we are able to identify ways in which that could be effective.

But the specific, I guess, needs in terms of programs and services through friendship centres need to be canvassed with the individual ministries that provide them. MARR doesn't have any program funding per se within our budget.

G. Coons: I'd first like to acknowledge that in the gallery is Ken Rea, who is the chief councillor of Old Massett, with Haida Nation.

Welcome, Ken.

He runs and owns the Haida Rose Café up in Old Massett, and I'm sure the minister and her staff have had good coffee and goodies up there.

My question is dealing out of the service plan. In the service plan it talks about building relationships and developing strong partnerships based on respect and recognition and that the social and cultural elements "are important factors that enable aboriginal peoples to take advantage of economic opportunities, improve outcomes for themselves."

I'm sure the minister is aware of the riding I represent, the diverse riding, the north and central coast, with the many First Nations and their issues about trying to maintain their economy that they have while looking after their own traditional cultures and values.

I just wanted a comment from the minister, because the Wuikinuxv, the Heiltsuk, the Kitasoo/Xai'xais, the Haisla, Metlakatla First Nation, the Gitga'at, the Skidegate Band Council, the Nuxalk, the Council of the Haida Nation in Old Massett all signed a declaration about oil tankers. Lax Kw'alaams is also an associate member, and the Nuxalk Nation also have joined on but didn't sign this. They joined on later.

It talks about depending upon "the lands and waters around us for our culture and our lives."

"As nations of the central and North Pacific coast and Haida Gwaii…we share our wealth and live in harmony." But they do commit to reducing their own carbon footprint and call on others they share this land with to do the same. "But in upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities, we declare that oil tankers carrying
[ Page 10307 ]
crude oil from Alberta tar sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters."

I'm just wondering if the minister acknowledges the declaration. I'm sure she has met with coastal First Nations and talked about it. It's a huge issue right now, with all the joint review panel hearings happening. I was in Hartley Bay, in Rupert, and they're ending in Kitkatla. I'm off to Bella Bella and Klemtu, and Skidegate is coming up. I'm just wondering if the minister acknowledges and recognizes and respects the coastal First Nations declaration on oil tankers.

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we recognize that First Nations have an absolutely unique perspective with respect to the protection of the land base and issues that might affect that. We certainly welcome the expressions of those interests, be it in declarations or as their voices are heard in other forums — through review processes and consultations, etc.

At this stage, though, as I'm sure the member is aware, all of those discussions are currently revolving around the National Energy Board process, which of course is a federal process. We have very good relationships with the coastal First Nations. We have quite a number of reconciliation agreements that we have completed, and we look forward to greater progress.

[1640]

As I'm sure the member is aware, if he is going to Skidegate in the near future, he will be excited to see the activity on the land base that I think is as a direct result of the relationship-building that has gone on and the agreements that we've made with the Haida. It truly is remarkable what's taking place there. I hope the member enjoys his travels there.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada